Where I work, we have been getting phone solicitations from AT&T a lot recently. I took one such phone call yesterday, and had to share the joy of it.
*phone rings*
ME: *Company Name*, this is Michael. How can I help you?
SOLICITOR: Hi, this is (insert name, I actually didn't catch it) with AT&T Network Solutions. I need to speak with Mr. Peller, or whoever is in charge of the phone services, please.
**She grotesquely mis-pronounced the boss' name, but it was close enough that I knew who she was talking about**
ME: Oh, my. You have called on the wrong day... You see, Mr. Peller is dead.
SOLICITOR: *Gasp!* Oh!
ME: Yeah. Yesterday, he got his by a truck. There wasn't much left.
SOLICITOR: I'm so sorry!
ME: Yeah. We're all looking for jobs now. Hey, are you guys hiring?
SOLICITOR: We are, actually.
ME: Great! Where can I turn in an application?
SOLICITOR: Well, we're in Ohio.
ME: Oh. Well, I'm in Oklahoma. That's not going to do me a whole lot of good.
SOLICITOR: I guess not. Well, my deepest condolences on your loss. I hope things get better.
ME: Thanks. Wish me luck.
SOLICITOR: Good luck on the job search.
ME: Thanks. Well, bye.
SOLICITOR: Goodbye.
I love screwing with those people!
Friday, April 11, 2008
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
...more on abortion...
I read this blog by Rachel Lucas. Rachel has a wonderful way of repainting the universe in a four-year-old's black and white frankness, being completely honest and still not insulting. I will submit this for your approval;
Ok. I love this. Let's take it a step or two further. Imagine if you will that this benign tumor is not the only risk associated with eating orgasm cake. Let's imagine that people with blue, brown, hazel, and green eyes can contract certain diseases from eating orgasm cake that they may not know the history of. If the cake they are eating was imported from certain other countries, for example, there may be more in it than just cake, much like the bad gluten in pet food, or lead paint on toys. Or perhaps the cake has not been stored carefully and has been stored improperly for too long, so that it looks good, but it can really make you sick.
If this were true, you could get a disease from eating certain cake that would show itself later by putting nasty sores around your mouth that would reoccur throughout your lifetime, or perhaps something less severe that could be cured with a shot. Or, perhaps you could get a disease from the cake that would cause your immune system to shut down, and you would eventually die of pneumonia. The fact of the matter is you don't know whose been nibbling on that cake that has not been treated properly prior to you. They may have had a disease that caused nasty sores on their mouths.
At the very least, you should wrap your fork with plastic if you are going to eat orgasm cake. The plastic will effectively protect you from these diseases most of the time. There have been a lot of studies that show that wrapping the fork in plastic is up to 80% efficient in stopping the spread of these diseases. The problem is that the plastic is porous, and may still pass the microbes that cause the diseases. Or, the fork may poke a hole in the plastic, thereby rendering it useless as protection.
What I'm getting at here is that the plastic wrap is the second best protection against diseases associated with eating orgasm cake. The absolute best protection is not nearly as desirable for most. You don't need to eat orgasm cake to survive. If you don't eat the cake, you won't get sick. If you limit your sources of orgasm cake, preferably to one supplier that only makes it for you, your chances of contracting CTD's (cake transferred diseases) decreases to practically zero. I know that a lot of people don't want to hear this, because the cake is so good! But, there you have it.
As long as society is casual about who eats whose cake, the spread of these CTD's will continue. The casual eating of cake plays into the Confucian Cycle, which our society is currently suffering from anyway. The likelihood that people like me can get more people to treasure their cake instead of casually offering a bite to lots of people is not very high in today's world. This is unfortunate for all of us.
As long as certain things are happening in our society, we will continue spiraling towards doom. The lack of personal responsibility is abhorrent. The fact that people take the view that kids are going to eat cake anyway, so we may as well give them plastic for their forks so the blue-eyed ones won't get tumors is a problem as well. Blue-eyed people should have access to pills and plastic, but we need to teach our children the implications of casual cake sharing as well.
Liberals and feminists act as though cake sharing is no big deal, but it is. If not from a moral standpoint, then from an emotional standpoint (I have a lot more to say about that) and from a health standpoint. It's true that we should not create stigmas for our children about eating cake, but we shouldn't encourage them to throw their cake at each other at random either.
OBTW - I have not yet said something horribly inappropriate to anyone yet, but I'm still intending to. I know the clock is ticking, and I still plan on doing that before time runs out.
Let’s say that there was a food that everyone really, really likes a lot, the most delicious food in the world, which almost everyone agrees is absolutely freakin’ delicious - call it orgasm cake. It’s that good. And let’s say that every time you eat orgasm cake, you have about a 20% chance of developing a benign tumor. For genetic reasons, that tumor is extremely painful only for people with blue eyes, so painful that they will have no choice but to have it surgically removed. Any other color eyes, and it is not painful but rather actually feels good and makes you happy. So everyone knows before they eat the cake whether or not they’re going to want that tumor.
The surgery for removing the painful tumor entails all the risks that all surgeries do. It costs money, it’s emotionally difficult, and it’s physically painful.
And let’s say there are dozens of ways for blue-eyed people to eat orgasm cake every single day of their lives but never develop that tumor. All they have to do is take a pill, or stick a patch on their arm, or wrap their fork in plastic and sprinkle some tasteless chemical on the orgasm cake before eating it, or most effectively, do all of those things and others. Blue-eyed people who take those precautions almost never grow the tumor and thus never require the surgical procedure. Everyone knows about these precautions and can get them from either the drug store or the same doctor who they’d otherwise have to go to for the surgery.
Ok. I love this. Let's take it a step or two further. Imagine if you will that this benign tumor is not the only risk associated with eating orgasm cake. Let's imagine that people with blue, brown, hazel, and green eyes can contract certain diseases from eating orgasm cake that they may not know the history of. If the cake they are eating was imported from certain other countries, for example, there may be more in it than just cake, much like the bad gluten in pet food, or lead paint on toys. Or perhaps the cake has not been stored carefully and has been stored improperly for too long, so that it looks good, but it can really make you sick.
If this were true, you could get a disease from eating certain cake that would show itself later by putting nasty sores around your mouth that would reoccur throughout your lifetime, or perhaps something less severe that could be cured with a shot. Or, perhaps you could get a disease from the cake that would cause your immune system to shut down, and you would eventually die of pneumonia. The fact of the matter is you don't know whose been nibbling on that cake that has not been treated properly prior to you. They may have had a disease that caused nasty sores on their mouths.
At the very least, you should wrap your fork with plastic if you are going to eat orgasm cake. The plastic will effectively protect you from these diseases most of the time. There have been a lot of studies that show that wrapping the fork in plastic is up to 80% efficient in stopping the spread of these diseases. The problem is that the plastic is porous, and may still pass the microbes that cause the diseases. Or, the fork may poke a hole in the plastic, thereby rendering it useless as protection.
What I'm getting at here is that the plastic wrap is the second best protection against diseases associated with eating orgasm cake. The absolute best protection is not nearly as desirable for most. You don't need to eat orgasm cake to survive. If you don't eat the cake, you won't get sick. If you limit your sources of orgasm cake, preferably to one supplier that only makes it for you, your chances of contracting CTD's (cake transferred diseases) decreases to practically zero. I know that a lot of people don't want to hear this, because the cake is so good! But, there you have it.
As long as society is casual about who eats whose cake, the spread of these CTD's will continue. The casual eating of cake plays into the Confucian Cycle, which our society is currently suffering from anyway. The likelihood that people like me can get more people to treasure their cake instead of casually offering a bite to lots of people is not very high in today's world. This is unfortunate for all of us.
As long as certain things are happening in our society, we will continue spiraling towards doom. The lack of personal responsibility is abhorrent. The fact that people take the view that kids are going to eat cake anyway, so we may as well give them plastic for their forks so the blue-eyed ones won't get tumors is a problem as well. Blue-eyed people should have access to pills and plastic, but we need to teach our children the implications of casual cake sharing as well.
Liberals and feminists act as though cake sharing is no big deal, but it is. If not from a moral standpoint, then from an emotional standpoint (I have a lot more to say about that) and from a health standpoint. It's true that we should not create stigmas for our children about eating cake, but we shouldn't encourage them to throw their cake at each other at random either.
OBTW - I have not yet said something horribly inappropriate to anyone yet, but I'm still intending to. I know the clock is ticking, and I still plan on doing that before time runs out.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Kids Say the Darndest Things...
This week has been an odd one for sure. First of all, I am the shipping and receiving departments at the manufacturing company where I work. We have equipment that we are taking to the FDIC trade show in IN next week. Needless to say, this has made my life complicated at work. The stuff has to ship out tomorrow, and it looks like most of the work is done at this point. So, that's a relief.
Yesterday afternoon, I started to have some sinus discomfort. I had a hard time sleeping last night, so I was really tired and grumpy today. The reason I say this is that I'm surprised I was able to accomplish so much at work today, and I was REALLY ready to be home this evening.
So, Jen and I got to the school to pick up the kiddo. We walked into the computer lab, where all the kids are after school, and peered toward the front, trying to identify our kid. I know that sounds terrible, but let me explain. The computer desks are arranged in rows, all facing the front of the classroom. The door is at the back of the classroom. It seems like all the boys have THE SAME haircut, and most of them are brown-headed, like our son.
I swept over the classroom at all the little brown heads, poking up from behind CRT-monitors all over the classroom, trying to pick the right one. Quickly, I identified my kid on the front row. He had the headphones on, and was playing some game on some kid's website. There was a little, curly-blond-haired girl sitting next to him. Sometimes, we will just holler at him when we get there. Usually, he can hear us through the headphones. Other times, we will sneak up behind him and try to startle him (which is really funny for all three of us, I might add). Today, I decided to walk around the front and put myself in his range of view on the other side of his monitor.
I walked to the front of the classroom, and started tapping my fingernails on the case of his monitor, and he started shutting down applications in response. This is when Curly-Sue addressed me.
"You must be Isaac's dad," she said inquisitively.
I paused for a moment. It always kind of freaks me out when the other kids address me when we are dropping off or picking up. It's not like it bothers me, per se. It's just that I never expect it, and I never know how to react to them. But with a smile, I answered, "Yes, I am."
"Well, I have a dad," she then said, "but he's not a Christian."
How the hell am I supposed to react to that? I had had a busy, unpleasant day, and all I wanted to do was to go home, and weird little girl was getting all personal with me. Regardless, I kept my composure and asked her, "Would you like me to pray for him?" I mean, honestly! What was I SUPPOSED to say?
She wrinkled her nose and shook her head, "That's OK. I have a step-dad too."
"Well, that's good," I told her. Then, I returned to the welcome solitude of my family, and we went to hunt for his hoodie that he left somewhere when the temperatures were high today.
Seriously, kids can be so odd. I don't think that there was anything at all wrong with this little girl, but adults don't typically tell personal issues to complete strangers on their second sentence unless they have some serious mental/emotional issues (or if it's over the internet! ;-P). What causes us to gain inhibitions that we lacked when we were young? It would be great if we could just be that open with other people without assumptions of serious baggage.
As a matter of fact, before this time next week, I intend to say something really inappropriate to someone else. I don't know what it will be, or who to. But, I'll have to let you know about it afterwards. For that matter, I will extend the invitation to all of you that bother to read me on the intertron to say something highly uncomfortable sometime within the next 168-hours, and tell me about your experience in my comments section. Come on, you can do it!
Yesterday afternoon, I started to have some sinus discomfort. I had a hard time sleeping last night, so I was really tired and grumpy today. The reason I say this is that I'm surprised I was able to accomplish so much at work today, and I was REALLY ready to be home this evening.
So, Jen and I got to the school to pick up the kiddo. We walked into the computer lab, where all the kids are after school, and peered toward the front, trying to identify our kid. I know that sounds terrible, but let me explain. The computer desks are arranged in rows, all facing the front of the classroom. The door is at the back of the classroom. It seems like all the boys have THE SAME haircut, and most of them are brown-headed, like our son.
I swept over the classroom at all the little brown heads, poking up from behind CRT-monitors all over the classroom, trying to pick the right one. Quickly, I identified my kid on the front row. He had the headphones on, and was playing some game on some kid's website. There was a little, curly-blond-haired girl sitting next to him. Sometimes, we will just holler at him when we get there. Usually, he can hear us through the headphones. Other times, we will sneak up behind him and try to startle him (which is really funny for all three of us, I might add). Today, I decided to walk around the front and put myself in his range of view on the other side of his monitor.
I walked to the front of the classroom, and started tapping my fingernails on the case of his monitor, and he started shutting down applications in response. This is when Curly-Sue addressed me.
"You must be Isaac's dad," she said inquisitively.
I paused for a moment. It always kind of freaks me out when the other kids address me when we are dropping off or picking up. It's not like it bothers me, per se. It's just that I never expect it, and I never know how to react to them. But with a smile, I answered, "Yes, I am."
"Well, I have a dad," she then said, "but he's not a Christian."
How the hell am I supposed to react to that? I had had a busy, unpleasant day, and all I wanted to do was to go home, and weird little girl was getting all personal with me. Regardless, I kept my composure and asked her, "Would you like me to pray for him?" I mean, honestly! What was I SUPPOSED to say?
She wrinkled her nose and shook her head, "That's OK. I have a step-dad too."
"Well, that's good," I told her. Then, I returned to the welcome solitude of my family, and we went to hunt for his hoodie that he left somewhere when the temperatures were high today.
Seriously, kids can be so odd. I don't think that there was anything at all wrong with this little girl, but adults don't typically tell personal issues to complete strangers on their second sentence unless they have some serious mental/emotional issues (or if it's over the internet! ;-P). What causes us to gain inhibitions that we lacked when we were young? It would be great if we could just be that open with other people without assumptions of serious baggage.
As a matter of fact, before this time next week, I intend to say something really inappropriate to someone else. I don't know what it will be, or who to. But, I'll have to let you know about it afterwards. For that matter, I will extend the invitation to all of you that bother to read me on the intertron to say something highly uncomfortable sometime within the next 168-hours, and tell me about your experience in my comments section. Come on, you can do it!
Monday, March 10, 2008
Enjoy Life's Little Moments
Seriously! Who in the world sits around and worries about this? What they are talking about here is an event that may or may not ever happen, with the likelihood of an actual event of a pinpoint-beam of gamma rays making it eight thousand lightyears to a direct hit next to nil, even statistically zero, rounded to the nearest hundredth of a percent! Not only is it extremely not likely to happen, but even if it did, we would never see it coming until it hit. In fact, if we are to be obliterated by a shock of gamma radiation from a distant (or even a relatively close) point in space, the emission has already happened, several thousand years ago. We're not talking about a little trip to the grocery here. This binary system would have had to spit out it's wickedly-charged, cosmic emanation prior to Christ walking the earth, and even prior to the glory of ancient Egypt. So, if you are ever going to be aware of being burned alive by gamma rays from another system like this, it has already been spun into play, has essentially happened, and there is no escape, even if we did have any kind of warning, which we do not. What kind of wet-pajamaed, nail-biting, calculator-hugging momma's boy of a scientist would even try to suggest that this MIGHT be worth worrying about in 8,000 years? When they are looking at the spiral in the telescope, I wonder how may astronomers feel the cold sweat run down their back as they think, "Oh, I hope that thing didn't fire off some incredibly precisely-aimed, radioactive ray beam some eight thousand years ago that's going to kill me." Seriously, people!
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Grammar
This particular rant is in response to this article.
I can't get over the grammatical error of using the plural verb on the singular noun. How many Ferrari companies are there, if they must have the plural conjugation of verbs as their predicate? As far as I know, Ferrari IS ONE company, therefore needs a singular conjugation. If it was otherwise, wouldn't it be "Ferraris?"
For instance, Ferrari are not demanding, but Ferrari is demanding that he remove the badges. Similarly, the car giant are not demanding that he never modify one of their cars again, but the car giant is demanding that he never modify one of their cars again. This is because the simplified version of the subject is "giant" -a singular noun. You wouldn't say, "The giant are in the park picking apples" would you?
Or, is this simple, logical grammar rule only for American English? I suppose that would make sense from the people that have more silent "e's" than any other language or dialect. And, it would make sense from the people who wrap lamp posts in foam to protect the half-retarded, text-messaging citizens. For that matter, it makes sense from the country where even the cops have no guns. Sheesh!
I can't get over the grammatical error of using the plural verb on the singular noun. How many Ferrari companies are there, if they must have the plural conjugation of verbs as their predicate? As far as I know, Ferrari IS ONE company, therefore needs a singular conjugation. If it was otherwise, wouldn't it be "Ferraris?"
For instance, Ferrari are not demanding, but Ferrari is demanding that he remove the badges. Similarly, the car giant are not demanding that he never modify one of their cars again, but the car giant is demanding that he never modify one of their cars again. This is because the simplified version of the subject is "giant" -a singular noun. You wouldn't say, "The giant are in the park picking apples" would you?
Or, is this simple, logical grammar rule only for American English? I suppose that would make sense from the people that have more silent "e's" than any other language or dialect. And, it would make sense from the people who wrap lamp posts in foam to protect the half-retarded, text-messaging citizens. For that matter, it makes sense from the country where even the cops have no guns. Sheesh!
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Perspective on Propaganda
This really pisses me off. One of the reasons I like living in Oklahoma, is it's not California. Well, I guess it is now. People totally buy into the modern propaganda on so much crap, and it really makes me mad. Take the list on this page, for example. There are a lot of people that are anti-gun and/or pro-gun control because of all the accidental shootings. According to this table, you are nearly twice as likely to die from medical malpractice than accidental gunfire. Furthermore, you are many times more likely to accidentally die from many other situations, including (but not limited to) car accidents, falling, poisoning, drowning, or choking on your food! Let's compare these stats to those on this page.
I am claiming that I'm putting these things in perspective, so let's make that an actual number. According to this page, the U. S. population in July of 2007 was 301,139,947. That would mean that the people who die each year of lung cancer from second hand smoke account for .000996% of the population. To simplify that for some of you, that accounts for only one of your 10,000 closest friends. I wouldn't exactly call that a F*&%ing epidemic. And, you are over THIRTEEN TIMES MORE LIKELY to die in an automobile accident than you are to die of lung cancer that you got from second hand smoke. You are more likely to die in a fire than from lung cancer associated with second hand smoke. What pisses me off more than anything else is the fact that there is so little truly comprehensive information concerning health risks according to smoking. I would like to see a study that says that X% of smokers contract whatever disease, not associated with other high-risk lifestyles such as glazier or machine work. I suspect you can't find this information, because it would be detrimental to the argument that it it so terribly, terribly bad for you. So, we just have to go with their numbers, I suppose.
But, if we take the above U. S. population number, and figure that 1/5 of the population smokes, as is guessed by The National Cancer Society, that would make 60,227,989 smokers, of which 440,000 were estimated to have died due to tobacco for the year. That would be 1 out of every 137 smokers dying of smoking-related illnesses. This amounts to less than 1% of all smokers dying each year. If the statistics could be applied straight-forward, if I smoked average cigarettes at an average rate over the course of 137 years, would I be almost certain to die of lung cancer? Not quite pandemic proportions.
It is estimated on the same website that 213,380 people got lung cancer from tobacco in the year of 2007. That would account for one out of every 282 smokers, or .36%. So, If I smoke for 282 years, and don't die of anything else, I'll get lung cancer. I know that statistics don't work exactly that way, but the way tobacco has become public enemy number one is ridiculous, and people need to start understanding the lies they are being fed.
It's like they want us to all believe that if you smoke, even occasionally, you will certainly die of cancer, and if you are around people who smoke, you will most likely die. I just don't think that's true, even looking at the weighted statistics of tobacco's enemies.
Given these statistics that I have laid out for you, people need more guns and smoking, and let's do away with cars, doctors, and water.
Secondhand smoke is responsible for an estimated 3,000 lung cancer deaths among U.S. nonsmokers each year
I am claiming that I'm putting these things in perspective, so let's make that an actual number. According to this page, the U. S. population in July of 2007 was 301,139,947. That would mean that the people who die each year of lung cancer from second hand smoke account for .000996% of the population. To simplify that for some of you, that accounts for only one of your 10,000 closest friends. I wouldn't exactly call that a F*&%ing epidemic. And, you are over THIRTEEN TIMES MORE LIKELY to die in an automobile accident than you are to die of lung cancer that you got from second hand smoke. You are more likely to die in a fire than from lung cancer associated with second hand smoke. What pisses me off more than anything else is the fact that there is so little truly comprehensive information concerning health risks according to smoking. I would like to see a study that says that X% of smokers contract whatever disease, not associated with other high-risk lifestyles such as glazier or machine work. I suspect you can't find this information, because it would be detrimental to the argument that it it so terribly, terribly bad for you. So, we just have to go with their numbers, I suppose.
But, if we take the above U. S. population number, and figure that 1/5 of the population smokes, as is guessed by The National Cancer Society, that would make 60,227,989 smokers, of which 440,000 were estimated to have died due to tobacco for the year. That would be 1 out of every 137 smokers dying of smoking-related illnesses. This amounts to less than 1% of all smokers dying each year. If the statistics could be applied straight-forward, if I smoked average cigarettes at an average rate over the course of 137 years, would I be almost certain to die of lung cancer? Not quite pandemic proportions.
It is estimated on the same website that 213,380 people got lung cancer from tobacco in the year of 2007. That would account for one out of every 282 smokers, or .36%. So, If I smoke for 282 years, and don't die of anything else, I'll get lung cancer. I know that statistics don't work exactly that way, but the way tobacco has become public enemy number one is ridiculous, and people need to start understanding the lies they are being fed.
It's like they want us to all believe that if you smoke, even occasionally, you will certainly die of cancer, and if you are around people who smoke, you will most likely die. I just don't think that's true, even looking at the weighted statistics of tobacco's enemies.
Given these statistics that I have laid out for you, people need more guns and smoking, and let's do away with cars, doctors, and water.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
In response to Rachel Lucas...
All,
I just read this post from Rachel Lucas, and felt inspired to give a response. Although I agree with her on many points here, I must respectfully disagree on a couple of the finer points of her blog entry, and felt that it would be longer than would be courteously posted as a response on her blog. So, here we go...
Firstly, I would like to agree whole-heartedly that NO ONE needs to feel obligated to find a mate in life in order to be a whole person. No person, nor any thing can make another person happy. Happiness is fleeting in this world. One must choose to enjoy where they are when they are, or be miserable. No matter your gender, sexual persuasions, race, creed, color, etc., if you decide that you will be miserable because of your circumstances, you will be. Once those circumstances change, you will find yourself still miserable, because you will be reaching towards imperfect things or people to try to achieve perfection. Einstein's theory of relativity can be applied to speed to determine that it is impossible for an object of significant mass to achieve the speed of light. Therefore, light speed is like perfection of life, in that we may approach it, but we will never achieve it in this reality. Therefore, I believe that I am agreeing with Rachel that those who get paired up and committed to another because they are settling out of desperation are destined for misery. No one should be in a hurry to find someone to marry.
Secondly, I also agree that the most lasting attractive parts of a woman are her mind and her heart. Frankly, I've met women with the most beautiful faces, and the sexiest, tightest bodies that were bitches, and it made the entire effect of physical attraction completely crumble. It's like having a car with no engine, or a colorful fruit that is rotten and worm-eaten on the inside. They may look good at first glance, but their total uselessness destroys any physical beauty that one sees at first glance.
Now, I will tell you why I disagree with her. In this blog entry, she says,
I'm going to have to call bullshit on your for several points here, Rachel Lucas. First of all, getting older does not mean getting less attractive. Sure, it's easy to be hot for an eighteen to twenty-six year old girl. All the pieces stay where they are supposed to, the skin is tight, and the metabolism runs faster. But, an attractive 40-year old is exponentially more stunning than an attractive twenty-something for that very reason. I'm not going to use that old cliche about women being like wine, but when a woman is well-aged, beautiful, and in shape, she shows that she has enough character and intelligence to take care of herself and preserve what God gave her. There is truly no higher mark of beauty than a few silver hairs and a couple of well-placed wrinkles. Beautiful women showing age are SEXY. In my home town, there are many women that have spent way too much time under the knife. These "ladies" are commonly referred to as "the trophy wives," and are spending lots of money to regain the glory days, or some crap like that. They look terrible. What they look like is a 45-year old woman trying to look like she is still in her twenties. Try this; look good the age you are. Don't look like a 45-year old trying to look like your 20-year old daughter, just look like a hot 45-year old. It's tons more attractive.
I agree and disagree here.
First of all, breasts are a waste of time. Granted, every once in a blue moon, I see a woman with stunning, well-shaped, large breasts, and I must admit that it is impressive. But they are so rare that they are hardly worth the effort of pursuing. They are not that impressive. Besides that, when I sought a mate, I was looking for a woman crazy enough to come on all of my wild adventures with me. Forget all the action shows that have Pamela Anderson-looking women in them. It's awful hard to repel, and go spelunking while hauling a pair of D+'s. A woman's chest is beautiful with little to no breasts. From a reptilian standpoint, the presence of large breasts signals that this woman will be able to nurse the babies. Guess what? A woman can be as flat as a wall, and they will still work. They are not that impressive. Period. I'm glad that my wife is sized the way she is, in that as she ages she will not sag, develop related back problems, and she isn't dragging giant people udders around with her all the time. I was looking for a partner, not a dairy factory.
As far as the "perfect face" is concerned, it doesn't exist. There are some that are close, but it really is unfair that society and the media makes every woman feel like they need to look like Lucy Liu, Jeri Ryan, Angelina Jolie, etc. et al in order to be beautiful. I will try to put this delicately. In my experience, the vast majority of women are beautiful. Most of them simply don't know it. On a daily basis, I see women who seem to be deliberately sabotaging their looks on a subconscious level with bad glasses frames, baggy clothing, poor hair choices, and the like. If I had a dollar for every woman that I have seen that I could identify the one thing that she was doing to make herself not look gorgeous, I would be a millionaire. Why this happens is a mystery to me, but I like to chock it up to the fact that we live in a fallen world full of damaged people. Damaged people have a hard time doing their best, and perpetuate the condition of the damaged world.
I guess that what I'm trying to say is that yes, Rachel, who you are is far more important that what you look like, now and from now on. But, don't give up on looking good, because it does have it's limited merits. Beauty and sex appeal on a wonderful, intelligent woman is like icing on the cake. Chances are, Rupert sees you as a whole lot hotter than you see yourself, and his perspective is likely closer to reality than yours. Women in general (here's another generalization) have bad self-images. I wish they did not, but it was a bad self-image that caused Gottlieb's article, and it is bad self-image that causes women to say that they aren't that attractive. I think you should ask Rupert if he thinks you are pretty and sexy and why. I think that if you really listen, you'll be surprised.
I just read this post from Rachel Lucas, and felt inspired to give a response. Although I agree with her on many points here, I must respectfully disagree on a couple of the finer points of her blog entry, and felt that it would be longer than would be courteously posted as a response on her blog. So, here we go...
Firstly, I would like to agree whole-heartedly that NO ONE needs to feel obligated to find a mate in life in order to be a whole person. No person, nor any thing can make another person happy. Happiness is fleeting in this world. One must choose to enjoy where they are when they are, or be miserable. No matter your gender, sexual persuasions, race, creed, color, etc., if you decide that you will be miserable because of your circumstances, you will be. Once those circumstances change, you will find yourself still miserable, because you will be reaching towards imperfect things or people to try to achieve perfection. Einstein's theory of relativity can be applied to speed to determine that it is impossible for an object of significant mass to achieve the speed of light. Therefore, light speed is like perfection of life, in that we may approach it, but we will never achieve it in this reality. Therefore, I believe that I am agreeing with Rachel that those who get paired up and committed to another because they are settling out of desperation are destined for misery. No one should be in a hurry to find someone to marry.
Secondly, I also agree that the most lasting attractive parts of a woman are her mind and her heart. Frankly, I've met women with the most beautiful faces, and the sexiest, tightest bodies that were bitches, and it made the entire effect of physical attraction completely crumble. It's like having a car with no engine, or a colorful fruit that is rotten and worm-eaten on the inside. They may look good at first glance, but their total uselessness destroys any physical beauty that one sees at first glance.
Now, I will tell you why I disagree with her. In this blog entry, she says,
Sure, some women might feel panic and desperation when they turn 30 or 35 without a husband, even if they don’t want kids, because they’re worried they won’t be able to get a man simply because they don’t look as good as they did in their 20s. You know what their problem is? They have nothing else to offer.
I’ll admit that sometimes I whine about getting older. I’ll say something to Rupert about not wanting to age, not liking the changes in my face. He snaps me out of it every time by reminding me of what I already know.
Women who should worry about losing their looks are women who haven’t bothered to develop an appealing personality. They haven’t invested any effort in educating themselves and having something to say. They have no sense of humor and they’re superficial. Often, they haven’t managed to find a way to earn enough money to take care of themselves.
You can only get away with that when you’re young and beautiful. Some men will put up with a vacuum between the ears if you offer what they consider an acceptable alternative - being hot. Once you stop being hot, you’re screwed, because you’ve got nothing to counterbalance your shitty personality.
I'm going to have to call bullshit on your for several points here, Rachel Lucas. First of all, getting older does not mean getting less attractive. Sure, it's easy to be hot for an eighteen to twenty-six year old girl. All the pieces stay where they are supposed to, the skin is tight, and the metabolism runs faster. But, an attractive 40-year old is exponentially more stunning than an attractive twenty-something for that very reason. I'm not going to use that old cliche about women being like wine, but when a woman is well-aged, beautiful, and in shape, she shows that she has enough character and intelligence to take care of herself and preserve what God gave her. There is truly no higher mark of beauty than a few silver hairs and a couple of well-placed wrinkles. Beautiful women showing age are SEXY. In my home town, there are many women that have spent way too much time under the knife. These "ladies" are commonly referred to as "the trophy wives," and are spending lots of money to regain the glory days, or some crap like that. They look terrible. What they look like is a 45-year old woman trying to look like she is still in her twenties. Try this; look good the age you are. Don't look like a 45-year old trying to look like your 20-year old daughter, just look like a hot 45-year old. It's tons more attractive.
As much as I hate the stereotypes about what “all women” want, I equally hate the stereotypes about what “all men” want. The idea that every man is more interested in looks than anything else is BULLSHIT. It’s simply not true. I’m a perfectly average-looking female and I’ve had four serious relationships, all with high-quality, good-looking men, and every one of them liked me more than they liked better-looking women who were interested in them because I’m smart and because I’m not crazy. My lack of big boobs and perfect face haven’t hindered my man-catching adventures in the least, because smart men want women they can stand to be around outside of the bedroom.
I agree and disagree here.
First of all, breasts are a waste of time. Granted, every once in a blue moon, I see a woman with stunning, well-shaped, large breasts, and I must admit that it is impressive. But they are so rare that they are hardly worth the effort of pursuing. They are not that impressive. Besides that, when I sought a mate, I was looking for a woman crazy enough to come on all of my wild adventures with me. Forget all the action shows that have Pamela Anderson-looking women in them. It's awful hard to repel, and go spelunking while hauling a pair of D+'s. A woman's chest is beautiful with little to no breasts. From a reptilian standpoint, the presence of large breasts signals that this woman will be able to nurse the babies. Guess what? A woman can be as flat as a wall, and they will still work. They are not that impressive. Period. I'm glad that my wife is sized the way she is, in that as she ages she will not sag, develop related back problems, and she isn't dragging giant people udders around with her all the time. I was looking for a partner, not a dairy factory.
As far as the "perfect face" is concerned, it doesn't exist. There are some that are close, but it really is unfair that society and the media makes every woman feel like they need to look like Lucy Liu, Jeri Ryan, Angelina Jolie, etc. et al in order to be beautiful. I will try to put this delicately. In my experience, the vast majority of women are beautiful. Most of them simply don't know it. On a daily basis, I see women who seem to be deliberately sabotaging their looks on a subconscious level with bad glasses frames, baggy clothing, poor hair choices, and the like. If I had a dollar for every woman that I have seen that I could identify the one thing that she was doing to make herself not look gorgeous, I would be a millionaire. Why this happens is a mystery to me, but I like to chock it up to the fact that we live in a fallen world full of damaged people. Damaged people have a hard time doing their best, and perpetuate the condition of the damaged world.
I guess that what I'm trying to say is that yes, Rachel, who you are is far more important that what you look like, now and from now on. But, don't give up on looking good, because it does have it's limited merits. Beauty and sex appeal on a wonderful, intelligent woman is like icing on the cake. Chances are, Rupert sees you as a whole lot hotter than you see yourself, and his perspective is likely closer to reality than yours. Women in general (here's another generalization) have bad self-images. I wish they did not, but it was a bad self-image that caused Gottlieb's article, and it is bad self-image that causes women to say that they aren't that attractive. I think you should ask Rupert if he thinks you are pretty and sexy and why. I think that if you really listen, you'll be surprised.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)