Thursday, December 29, 2011

Breastfeeding In Public - The Debate Continues

The debate between those FOR and AGAINST breastfeeding in public is a topic that has been going on since the dawn of the breast. More often than not, if the conversation goes on long enough, it becomes quite heated.

Recently, I read a news story on CNN that has garnered national attention. In my home state of Texas, Michelle Hickman, 35, was at a Target store when the need to nurse her 5-month-old child arose. Trying to be somewhat discreet, Ms. Hickman found what she referred to as a "remote area" in the store and covered herself with a large blanket. According to Hickman, no one but employees came around where she had decided to feed her infant and that several of them harassed her about it, insisting she go to a fitting room instead.

Texas law allows breastfeeding in public and Hickman says she told the employees this. Still, they insisted she move it to the fitting rooms. Target spokeswoman, Jessica Carlson, told CNN, "Guests who choose to breastfeed in public areas of the store are welcome to do so without being made to feel uncomfortable."

Women in at least 6 states have started staging "Nurse-In" protests to show their support for Ms. Hickman. There's even a Facebook page with over 7,000 members giving their support. It was after reading through comment threads on several news sites covering this story, that I decided to chime in.

As is often the case with me, I can see both sides. Maybe my calling is to be a mediator and not a writer. I'll let fate decide. Anyway, in this particular case, I fall more along the lines of supporting Michelle Hickman than the Target employees in question. This, however, is not always the case and it is here where the debates usually start.

In my opinion, there are two three types of women who breastfeed in public:
  • Those who make an attempt to cover themselves and/or find a private area
  • Those who take the law at its face value and basically use little-to-no common sense or decency
  • Those who do it in shows of solidarity and/or protest
This entire post's purpose is to target (no pun intended) those in the second and third groups.

Those who take the law at its face value, etc:
This group tends to make me roll my eyes and/or shake my head. This group includes those who make no effort to cover themselves or hide what they're doing. This group includes those who will do it in the middle of a crowded restaurant. This group (usually) includes the kind of women that "couldn't care less what people think"...about this or anything else.

Look. I understand that when an infant's hungry, it's gonna raise hell until it gets the boob. I get that. Where my issue starts is when you decide that, rather than make those around you deal with a crying baby for a few minutes while you gather what you need and find a private place to feed him or her, you either lift your shirt or lower your plunging V neck sweater and whip out the tit and proceed as if it's as dubious as blowing your nose.

Please, please, please don't start with the whole "breasts' sole purpose is for nurturing an infant" or that if it offends people, "those people are just wound too tight!" ...or even the "It's not my fault guys get all excited when they see a breast!" Give me a break! One: The anus' sole purpose is to spew solid waste and noxious gases but takin' a dump with the stall door open, just because it's legal, doesn't make it right! There are some things people simply do not want to see...regardless of how "natural" it is! Two: Any part of the body (that is generally covered while fully dressed) that suddenly becomes quite visible, usually offends people. They are not in the minority! Three: If your boob suddenly flopping free causes a few rusted zippers, chances are that nudity isn't common where your chesticle is currently making its appearance!

On that sexualization note, men are not the sole reason that the female breast has been somewhat sexualized. The fact is, regardless of how "wrong" it is, western society has presented the breast as something that only bad girls show and good boys deserve to see! Women themselves are partially to blame. "What?!?" you say? Well, who is it that buys push-up bras? Who is it that buys padded bras? Who is it that buys string bikinis? Who is it that is well-known for showing their baby-feeders in exchange for 69-cent plastic beads at Mardi Gras? Who is it that despises their own appearances when those puppies hit their knees? WOMEN!

Those who do it in shows of solidarity and/or protest:
Granted, I have my own preconceived opinions about those who go out and protest things that aren't literally "life and death" situations, but I digress. This is aimed at those who do their protesting without small blankets, shawls and the like to cover their modesty. To you women, I say, "Get a frigging grip, you hussies!" You're likely the same type that doesn't need liquid courage to get your (yet another witty euphemism for breasts here) out for those beads mentioned earlier. Either that or you feel that shaving your armpits and legs is only something brainwashed, man-pandering, weak-willed women do. I'd wager to say that at least 80% of this type are either (ex)strippers, wear tie-dye t-shirts, don't wear makeup or possess boobs that would make most people choose to tongue-kiss their uncles rather than see!

On a serious note, if you've been following this blog for over a day, you know I make a lot of my points in the ol' tongue-in-cheek fashion quite often. However whimsical my approach, I firmly stand by my opinions in each and every article. That being said, I'm not afraid to admit when someone makes me see things in a different light. It hasn't happened on this blog yet, but if and when it does, I'll freely admit it. I never say never. ;o)

Until next time...

If this article is still online, I'll still reply to any and all comments that warrant it. Never feel like an article you view here is too old to bother with. Comments are always welcomed!
Scroll down to comment
If you attempt to comment and it fails or you see an error message, please email me immediately.

Monday, December 19, 2011

Is Anyone Up?

WARNING: Although you have previously agreed to proceed after a Blogger-based warning message, this post is of a more controversial nature than this blog's usual content. Furthermore, it is much longer than my previous opinion-based articles posted in the past.

Okay. I admit it. I can no longer sit back and simply bitch on-site about the site in question. I gotta do it publicly now. This will be tl;dr (Too Long, Didn't Read, for you non-Internet-savvy readers) to many of you but if you've ever followed or read my blog before, this comes as no shock. It's just a little more so than usual.

I'd have marked this article as NSFW except that my blog itself is, in its raw state, considered the same. To avoid the "You coulda told me!!" crowd, the site in question contains nudity. It shows boobs, schlongs, hoo-ha's, pimples, questionable bumps (most of which are almost always automatically considered herpes to many of the sites commenters) butts, buttholes (which spawned a new hash tag: #NBHNC or No Butt Hole, No Care), hemorrhoids and a whole host of other coulda-gone-the-rest-of-my-life-without-seeing-that's.

Is Anyone Up? is a web site in which jilted exes and the like, submit their former partners, past friends and acquaintances in all their glory (or complete and utter lack thereof [i.e. gnargoyles aka gnargs]).  On the flip side, wannabe players and models, delusional narcissists, up-and-coming bands/band members and e-celebs also submit their own nudes (also known as n00dz and other pathetic memes).

Now, hypocritically to some of you, I frequent the site in question so let me put that out there now. I tripped across it when I ran across a news story about hacked celebs and some female "rapper's" photos being leaked. When I found them, they had Is Anyone Up?'s watermark shamelessly stamped on them. The rest is history. I've gone back quite a few many, many times since.

So why in the holy hell am I writing an article slamming it if I frequent it?!? Would you believe, "for research purposes"? Yeah. Me either. I go because I like to see naked people. I like controversy. I like seeing Internet flame wars. I have a morbid curiosity about many things. I cave to them. Simple as that. That being said, I also have strong opinions and I despise lies and hypocrisy, which the site's creator, Hunter Moore, and Is Anyone Up?'s Terms Of Service are littered with.

If you're still reading, you have a lot of time on your hands and are either very open-minded or are looking for more ammo to slam me with. Either way, kudos! Being that I've been frequenting Is Anyone Up? (henceforth referred to as IAU) for a while, my diatribe is going to be entirely too long. I've had a lot of time to form my opinions and haven't voiced nearly enough of them openly so they kinda built up. You've been warned. Unlike many blogs and articles that slam IAU and/or Hunter Moore, this article is at least somewhat informed, if nothing else. I have not interviewed or otherwise spoken with Hunter Moore or any of his staff at Is Anyone Up?. My opinions, however much shared or not, are my own and anything seemingly presented as fact has become thus labeled through interviews I've heard and read and from deductions I've made from my own experiences. I may be wrong, factually, on some portions...and freely admit that. I'm not a journalist. I'm a guy with too much time and an opinion.

Geez. Where do I start? First I'll start with the site itself and what it contains, then move on to its owner, Hunter Moore, and his sheep, puppets, donors and most loyal followers. Let's start with parts of the Terms of Service: (Directly from their source and in italics)

Concerning The Site:

Early on, it states that "you must be 18 years of age or over to use this web site". Ding! Ding! We haaaaave bullshit! Countless times, in the comments of random posts on IAU, girls talk about being too young to self-submit or showing how eager they are to turn 18 and do so. If that isn't enough, Hunter Moore himself, on his Twitter feed, tells girls (to the girls themselves most of the time) to submit when they turn 18. Furthermore, just today, I saw where he was telling a 15 year old male to clear his cache so that the site's new content would then show up.

Now, I'm not a total idiot. I know that people lie about their age. I know teens are sexualized as hell these days. I know that visitor count means a lot when running a web site. The simple fact is, IAU only puts it in their Terms of Service to cover their asses. The responsibility lies, as well it should, with the parents when it comes to keeping their under-aged offspring from sites such as IAU. Where I have an issue with it is when it's undeniable that there are minors present and not a thing (seemingly anyway) is done to remedy it.

Content Posted On This Web Site
This one is likely the most laughable. ([Emphasis is mine]):  "In connection with User-Submitted Content, you affirm, represent, and/or warrant that: you won[sic] or have the necessary licenses, rights, consents and permissions to...[submit what you're submitting]". HA! Damn near the entire site's premise is based on the exact opposite! Hypocritical much?!?

Content Posted On This Web Site (continued)
"You acknowledge that is acting as a passive conduit of User-Submitted Content and that is not undertaking any obligation or liability relating to any content or activity on the website. As such, acts merely as a forum for the expression of ideas, thoughts, and information. is not responsible for any inaccurate, wrong, offensive, inappropriate, or defamatory content that is contained herein."

Really? "...a passive conduit of User-Submitted Content...", "...not undertaking any...liability...", "...not responsible for inaccurate, wrong, offensive, inappropriate, or defamatory content..."? Are you serious?!? Again, HA! I dare say the site isn't intended to show people in a positive light (99.9% of the time) and for Hunter to act as if his site is all user-submitted has always irked me! He posts girls he's (supposedly) had sex with (or smashed, as he so eloquently words it), "fingered", "gotten head from", etc, constantly. At least once or twice, the girl in question has commented on the site and said he was as full of shit as he is illiterate.

On the same "...only User-Submitted Content..." and "third-party" front, users submit. Hunter and his "staff" review it. They verify the age of the subject. They upload it elsewhere. They make screen shots of the subjects' Facebook or Twitter profiles. They upload it to IAU's server. In short, he/they do indeed upload the content themselves even if only transferred. That's getting pretty darn technical, but I digress. (I could have a small detail of that process a little off) As far as verifying the age of the subjects, they've dropped the ball there a few times as well. Verifying one's age doesn't always verify ones age in the photographs in question. I've heard EXIF-data mentioned in part of that process as well. My gut tells me doing a screen shot of a pic, cropping it and making it a new photo, would render moot all that quasi-investigation. I reserve the right to be wrong here.

Content Posted On This Web Site (continued again) Not the complete list referenced and emphasis is mine:
 "A partial list of content that is illegal or prohibited includes content that:
Harasses or invades the privacy of another person" Bwahahahaha! You're killing me here!!! You do everything but post hyperlinks to their Facebook and/or Twitter profiles themselves and, when others do, I see none of those comments deleted by the "moderators".

"Promotes an illegal or unauthorized copy of another’s copyrighted work" This one could be argued that one who takes photos of themselves owns the copyright. A legal gray area. Its critics conclude that once the photos in question were passed to another, they relinquished their copyright. Another legal gray area.

"Promotes information you know is false, misleading* or promotes illegal activity or conduct that is abusive, threatening, obscene, defamatory** or libelous" *You mean like posts labeled "Herps Confirmed" containing poorly-photoshopped Valtrex medicine bottles with the subject's name made as if to appear on it, or going by little more (if any more) than the submitter's word? **You mean like using rape as a "funny" headline to the post? Labeling someone as a gnarg? Calling people "IAU-confirmed band whores" based solely on their own or others' words? Okay. I get you. (Most of this section's Terms of Service references are basically repeated in the Code of Conduct portion)

You also agree that you will not:
"harvest or collect information about the users of this website" Some of the subjects ARE users and commenters have claimed openly, many times, to the ol' "right-click and save". Granted, this is another example of "ya can't really control it but cover your ass with legalese".

Hunter Moore
"Hunter Moore is the face and one of the moderators for Hunter Moore does not steal, buy* or collect** any content posted on the site. Everything here is user submitted." Bullshiiiiiit! *Bounties are offered regularly. Not always by Hunter himself, however. (If he never has, then I sit corrected and hereby apologize....for that part). **He submits from time to time so, therefore has "collected content".

Concerning Its Owner: (Hunter Moore)

Believe it or not, as lengthy as the above (site-relevant portion) is, my biggest problem is more with the site's owner who is Hunter Moore. It's not a personal problem with him. I don't know the guy and have absolutely zero wish to. My beef is with his attitude, his lack of any semblance of respect for (most) others and his overall demeanor.

My opinion(s), as well as that/those of others, mean(s) nothing to him and that's fine. He shouldn't have to ask, "How high?" when someone says, "Jump!". I don't fault the guy for not caring what people think...but when those "people" are little more than nameless faces and sometimes the "victims" of his site's sole purpose, it becomes an issue for me. Whether he (or any of you) cares or not, I'm just voicing my opinion as many others have done. If, for nothing else, just to frickin' say I got my turn.

Hunter Moore is (as of this post) 25 or so and can barely form a sentence, much less spell the words therein. He freely admits (as if he had to) that fact. He is also endlessly drunk, stoned and coked out of his mind. He freely admits this as well...via his Twitter feeds (and any other medium he happens to be near, I'm sure).

Where I developed a "contempt" for the guy is when he asks for donations. Sure, donations, by their very nature are done by choice, but he makes it no secret that he frequents hookers, clubs, parties, "the scene" and loves his drugs and drinks...all of which normally cost money. (I have no doubt his pseudo-celeb status garners him some freebies) He claims these donations are needed for server costs. But he recently ran a contest where "he" was going to pay the nearly-entire bill for someone to "come out, do drugs and fuck" (to paraphrase) in Vegas with him. Hello?!? Every last donor that might have entered that contest, should automatically "win" because they basically paid for it! What were you people thinking? LOL

"You're totes jelly!" is similar to what some of his meme-filled minions would probably say to/about me. ("Totally jealous" to the more articulate folks) Regardless, it's not the case. I can see why you'd say that, but no...I'm not. Envious? Yes. (and yes, I know some could argue that jealousy and envy are one and the same but they are technically different) I'm envious that he has such a loyal and nearly-unwavering following. That's where the envy ends. If Hunter had worked and studied his ass off for what he now has, then yes. Then, I'd be "jelly". The fact is he did little more than stumble across an opportunity while trying another idea. The fact that he capitalized on the trust, privacy, reputations and possibly-ruined futures of so many unsuspecting "victims" (obviously not including those who self-submitted or send nudes to everyone and their dog) is why I have zero respect for the guy. Truth be told, as a fellow human being, I truly do hope Hunter gets cleaned up and makes a more respectable future and legacy for himself. He's working on an iPhone app that "could revolutionize social media". I wish him luck on that and hope it's at least somewhat respectfully-based. I hope it is successful enough to where he can abandon IAU altogether...which would be the end of life as we know it for many, many folks...more of just-a-bummer to me.

I also (genuinely) worry for his future and safety if he continues as-is. His life very well could be taken as a direct result of his and his web site's actions. It only takes one nutcase. I don't respect the guy but I wish death on no one. (Well...except my ex-....okay....fuck it! You know what I mean!!)

Right or Wrong? Too often you'll read from both Hunter Moore and his more loyal followers, "If you didn't want to be seen naked, you shouldn't have taken/sent the pics!!!" By their rationale, one should never, ever, ever document, photograph or film their intimate moments or nude body. That argument is not only tired but fucking insane. That would be like saying, "You left the house knowing there was a serial killer still at large out there, so you deserved it!!" or "You knew people die every single day in traffic accidents so you have no one to blame but yourself for starting your car and leaving the driveway!!!" or "She was wearing a half shirt so she was asking to be raped! She wanted the attention!" Get my drift? These analogies may seem far-fetched to some of you but if they are, I assure you that they aren't off by much. Don't give me the whole "apples and oranges" argument.

Those that use that asinine argument are in essence saying that no one should ever be able to use anything but their imaginations and/or memories when remembering an intimate moment or a bygone love...or even just a one-night stand...again. Hell, some ask for them or take them simply to have while separated from their partner for an extended period of time. To follow those who use the aforementioned argument's logic, no one should ever trust anyone again...ever...with anything. Good luck on the rest of your lives with that line of thought running rampant in your skulls.

...don't even get me started on the idiots who get "#NBHNC" (or any other IAU-related) tattoos. I'm laughing at you. I'm laughing hard at you. Not so much for the subject matter of the tattoo itself as much as for the fact that you got a TATTOO....of a fucking WEB SITE.

...or those girls and guys stripping down and/or spreading their ass cheeks wiiiiiide....all for a free t-shirt....of a web site! A t-shirt!

...or the girls who can't wait to turn 18 to self-submit. They have their entire futures ahead of them and are taking the chance that a lapse in judgment (or not just a lapse) "back in their younger days" absolutely ruined any chance they ever had of a decent career above that of a stripper at Bucky's Booby Barn! Newsflash: Most reputable employers now check the Internet for perspective employees' backgrounds.

...or the countless fucking idiots who send in so-called "support pics" featuring them fully-clothed, nearly-naked or fully-naked with "#NBHNC" written on their bodies....but not showing what "BH" stand for!!!

...or the photos taken in a fucking mirror, rendering that text backwards! (facepalm)

(breeeaaathe, Cliff. Breeeaaathe!) Okay. I'm good now.

About fucking time, right? Look...I don't have any problem whatsoever with questionable web sites making money. I've been to many that could be defined as "questionable" and my very presence gives the sites in question that very chance. I get that. Where I have a problem with questionable web sites making money, is when the money is made off of the possible real pain they can cause others. Yes. I'm fully aware that this article's very existence will drive at least three entire people to Hunter Moore's site and I'll have to live with myself for that. Much more legitimate writers and news sources have driven far more to far worse.

Until next time...

I have implemented a new commenting system. Sadly, in doing so, I inadvertently lost all comments made prior to December 28, 2011. My deepest apologies to those this adversely affected. If it's any consolation, it makes my blog here look pretty darn unvisited over the years.
If this article is still online, I'll still reply to any and all comments that warrant it. Never feel like an article you view here is too old to bother with. Comments are always welcomed!
Scroll down to comment
If you attempt to comment and it fails or you see an error message, please email me immediately.

Sunday, December 11, 2011

Double Standards - On My Last Nerve

Since the dawn of time there have been expected behaviors from the two sexes. When you get down to it, it's basically society expecting the genders to be equal and to be treated as such. The sad fact is, it's just not ever gonna happen. Things that society accepts as "guy things" and "girl things" proves this. Too often, however, the men or women complaining about these double standards, are focusing it on the opposite sex as if it's undeniably their fault

All these facts get on my nerves and I've now decided to get it off my chest. This is going to be partially tongue-in-cheek, partially way too riled up and partially giving the appearance of a meltdown. It's virtually guaranteed to offend someone so I hereby state that if you're easily offended, you may wanna buy some materials, build a bridge and get over it. You've been warned.

The term "Double Standard" is defined as "the unjust application of different sets of principles for similar situations". In other words, expecting equal views and treatment between the sexes, races and cultures just because they "said so"! Below are some of the ones I've thought of over time, jotted down and am no going to bitch, whine and moan about. They are in no particular order...just in the order that I thought of them over time.

Battered Women/Men: This one is sort of a two-parter. First, it's no secret that violence against women by men far outweigh violence against men by women, but it's how the battered people are treated that gets on my last nerve. If it's a battered woman, they often hear, "Why don't you just pack your shit and get out?!?" Gee. I bet that never once occurred to them! Unless you've been battered or know someone who has, keep your worthless advice to yourself! Being abused is not just a physical act. It's basically a breaking down of one's esteem and self worth. They not only fear their abuser but often fear they have "nowhere to go". It's a very real fear and, sadly, often justified.

The double standard comes in when it's a man that's being battered. It happens, folks! The numbers are skewed into the unknown by the sheer numbers of men too embarrassed to admit it. Their embarrassment is exacerbated by the way society treats them if their painful secret gets out. They're treated as if they're such utter and complete wusses, so that they likely deserved it. Unacceptable!

Sexual Mutilation: This one has bothered me for eons. It came to a head when the now infamous Bobbitt case happened back in June of 1993. It wasn't so much what this woman did, but the unwavering and countless conversations I overheard over the next few months that became (seemingly) perfectly acceptable. Even before all of the facts were released, women everywhere were steadily joking about slicing off the manhood of every guy that even remotely annoyed them. No one even batted an eye when they were carrying on like this. Merchandise even came out referencing it!

Imagine the roles reversed. Let's say Ms Bobbitt (now Ms. Gallo) had abused John Bobbitt throughout their marriage. Let's say he got fed up with it and grabbed a pair of scissors and cut off her nipples as she slept. The public outcry and condemnation would be on a biblical scale! Quick Fact: Lorena Bobbitt was previously prosecuted (by the same prosecutor that later prosecuted John Bobbitt) for attacking him! Furthermore, in December of 1997, she was charged with assault after punching her own mother as she watched television.

Infidelity: This is another one that irks me to no end. You've heard and read psychologists, laymen and all sorts of idiots in between claim, "Men cheat for physical reasons. Women cheat for emotional reasons". BULLSHIT! Maybe this was true back in their days when the world was still in black and white and people still "socked" someone when they were "sore" at them, but since then? Puh-LEEZE!

There's 3 types of cheating, in my opinion: 1) Cheating that "just happened". Meaning the kind of situation where two people may have been drinking and are laughing and carrying on and then suddenly, "Holy shit! Did we just kiss!?!?" 2) Cheating that is basically fulfilling a fantasy between two people where at least one of them always wondered what it would be like and/or pictured the other's face while having sex with their significant other. This can also include or be seen as what "experts" think are "emotional reasons". People feeling that there's something missing at home. 3) Your dick is hard/your pussy is tingling and you have simply got to get some relief! "It seemed normal at the time!" This last kind is where you suddenly try to justify what was supposedly "missing in your life" but not until after you got your rocks off!

The fact is that both men and women can feel emotionally abandoned in a stagnant relationship. Men and women can make a sudden, unintended mistake and both men and women can think with their naughty no-no parts and get 'em some! Period! This is not a gender thing. It's a (flawed) human thing!

Sex Toys: This one's kinda funny more than anything but nonetheless true. Have ya noticed how common it is you can overhear (or read) two or more adult women talking about "B.O.B."? How many toys they have? The rabbits, foot-longs, double-headed, suction-cupped. metal, veiny, rubber, silicone, spiked, ribbed, motorized, life-like aka "Who needs a man!" collections they talk about?  Now have ya noticed how ya barely even bat an eye when they do?

Reverse the roles again. How many of you would give a guy absolute hell (or have been the guy that got found out)...who's had a fleshlight, a sex doll, a prostate massager, a penis pump...anything? That guy is automatically seen as a loser, likely a virgin, banished from the loins of any self-respecting woman for the rest of his life and likely to cause him life-altering embarrassment. What the fuck is up with that? A woman can put anything that fits inside of her, inside of her and get off 'til the cows come home but the second a guy fashions something remotely warm or tight, he's a complete and utter pervert loser! Hide your fresh produce! Don't even get me started on the half-assed attempts that have even been made in the industry...for men's satisfaction.

Experimenting (Sexually): Otherwise known as bicuriosity. This one more bothers me in theory than anything else but I have noticed it. A girl can talk about having kissed girls in college, tried wrestling with her bff naked when she was 17, preferring girl-girl-guy threesomes, etc....and it's heard, acknowledged and moved past. Period. Katy Perry got on the map singing a song about it for fuck's sake!

Now, back to role-reversals. Imagine finding out your buddy Jake went Brokeback Mountain for a night back in '93 with a hairless fellow named Terrence. It was just for one night. He was drunk. It was dark. Terrence made him feel attractive. Terrence gave amazing You see my point?

Choosing To Stay Single: This one is fairly new both in the world and on my list of irks. Studies (that I can't be bothered to look for now) show that more and more women are choosing to stay single and concentrate on their careers, etc. Long story short, they're empowering themselves...prioritizing and taking control of their futures.

A guy does this? That son of a bitch is a player! He fears commitment! He just wants another notch in his bedpost!! Makes me wanna slap someone 'til they pee a little!

Strip Clubs: This one isn't major and won't be long-winded because, quite frankly, I haven't lived near any for many, many years and couldn't really justify the expense very often when I did. This one has to do with the common belief that men go to hang out at strip clubs because they're cheating, horny, wild heathens. On TV and movies you see them hootin' and hollerin' and raising hell and giving men everywhere a bad name. Reality? Every single time I've ever been to a strip club, the DJ had to all but bribe and beg the guys in the audience to make some fucking noise! Contradicting the media much? It's true! Most guys, if they're in a strip club, are there because they get to see naked women. They get to see naked women without having to work for it. They get to see naked women, without having to work for it and they don't get told to go do or fix something. It's little more than a guy just "getting away from it all". Guys are known to be more of a visual creature than women. Simple as that. Anything else you've heard or believed, is likely just plain wrong.

Now, my female readers will have to correct me if I'm wrong here but, any time I've seen footage, photographs, etc of women in strip clubs, albeit far less often than men, they are losing their fucking minds! They're also doing much, MUCH more touching! (and I ain't talkin' touching his shoulders either) In so-called gentleman's clubs, touching one of the dancers can, and will, get you kicked straight to the curb unless that dancer chose to let you. It is severely frowned upon in most clubs. Not so much in the male stripper domain. I've also seen many interviews with female dancers who claim that it's women who get on their nerves at gentleman's clubs. Not men! Why? Because women seem to think that because they are women, that the rules don't apply to them and they can grab, fondle and harass without abandon. WRONG!

Domestic Violence: This one is a more touchy subject but is being brought up for two reasons. 1) How I was brought up and 2) A disturbing trend I've noticed. When I was growing up...okay....getting didn't hit women...PERIOD! No reason was good enough...PERIOD! "But she..."...PERIOD! The disturbing trend I've noticed is actually two trends: 2a) Women starting physical fights with guys and 2b) Guys starting fights with or retaliating quicker, with women.

I don't know if it's an Internet thing, a generational thing, an evolution thing or what but, in my day, ya just didn't do it. I'm prepared to say that this gave women free reign to be absolute holy terrors and that some of 'em clearly "asked for it" but it took a low-down loser to take 'em up on it. If Youtube and WorldStarHipHop both banned fight videos, they would plummet in viewership. I dare say that the latter only became known because of fight vids and most-assuredly not their hip hop videos.

Lastly, I've always thought trying to solve anything with fists was the coward's way out and that it takes far more guts to actually talk, but I digress. As far as female-on-male violence, my ex-sister-in-law...yes...a female...put it best and now sums up my opinion on it; "When a woman hits a man, she just put herself in a man's place!" A-fricking-MEN, sister!

On that note, until next time, my friends... 

I have implemented a new commenting system. Sadly, in doing so, I inadvertently lost all comments made prior to December 28, 2011. My deepest apologies to those this adversely affected. If it's any consolation, it makes my blog here look pretty darn unvisited over the years.
If this article is still online, I'll still reply to any and all comments that warrant it. Never feel like an article you view here is too old to bother with. Comments are always welcomed!
Scroll down to comment
If you attempt to comment and it fails or you see an error message, please email me immediately.

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

Online Dating: May The Farce Be With You

In this day and age looking for love via the World Wide Web is quite common. It's the biggest segment of paid content behind pornography. Be it due to a demanding work schedule, a tiring of the club and bar scene, fear of rejection or any multitude of other reasons, it has become one of many ways to find "the one." The problem? The majority don't.

Sure. We hear of success stories on TV from sites such as,,,, etc but the fact is, the ones who go through it with success are in the minority. Roughly 17-20% success, I recently read. While there are free sites out there, many are automatically seen as "not trying" if they aren't paying for "real" and scientific match-making.

Yes. I've been there. I live in a less-than-ideal town for an atheist 40-year old to be looking for love but I digress. My point is that I just didn't have many feasible or realistic options when looking for "her." I may be a tad biased but, on the inside, I truly do consider myself what many women describe; great sense of humor, open-minded, intelligent, intellectual, etc etc etc. The sad truth is, however, that first impressions are lasting impressions. If one doesn't have the smile of Brad Pitt, the rugged good looks of George Clooney or the paycheck of Denzel Washington, chances are the odds are against 'em.

Now, don't put words in my mouth. I'm not claiming that women are shallow but I will say that they damn sure are just as shallow as they often claim men are! While you may not advertise the fact, many of you (women) will agree that above-average-looking guys with a good-paying and promising career are the first you look at. I don't even blame you. I read another study not too long ago that I'll admit I have forgotten the location of (on or about it boiled down to this: Women, more often than not, judged society's definitions of good-looking men as "average". It seems that women feel they are swallowing enough pride by looking for a mate online without lowering themselves to the point that they merely "settle" on the least of multiple evils.

Obviously, I'm writing this article from the male perspective and I don't mean every woman on dating sites. I do mean the majority, however. I'm well aware that the majority (from what I can tell from my half-assed research) of men on dating sites are guilty of lying about their age, their height, their head-hair count, their criminal backgrounds, etc. Both sexes have ruined it for of us? The dishonest seem to ruin it for those of us who are painfully honest.

Then you have another extreme. Those like me. I tell women in my profiles, much to my downfall (but I have no regrets), about all the flaws I have. I then proceed to give them all my best qualities as well. I had never been any semblance of successful on dating sites but I can proudly exclaim that I have received many, many messages telling me how much of a "refreshing change" my honesty was. I was just as happy and proud to receive those messages as I would have been to receive hundreds of messages in my on-site inboxes. But, at the same time, I likely came across as painfully desperate and pathetic to many as well. You really can't win unless something great about you sticks out over and above the apparent shortcomings.

Damn those of you who write, "I don't want someone with baggage" or "leave your insecurities at the door" and, my personal favorite, "Those living in their mother's basement, need not apply." I haven't lived with my parents since the age of 17 but this one has always pissed me off. Think about it. What's the first thing you think of when you hear of a woman living with her parents? I'll tell you. You automatically assume the "poor, poor girl is fresh out of a bad relationship, has children to feed and is just basically down on her luck" or some other similar scenario. When a guy is living with his parents? LOSER!!! (Admit it! You know I'm right!)

I've come to the conclusion that dating sites are primarily populated with dead or stagnant accounts, fake profiles, a sprinkle of real people who find real happiness and the majority. The majority, in my opinion, are lonely to a point, all-but-hopeless-and-giving-up, lacking in some "important" dating-scene areas or are otherwise HUMAN!

Until next time, my friends...

I have implemented a new commenting system. Sadly, in doing so, I inadvertently lost all comments made prior to December 28, 2011. My deepest apologies to those this adversely affected. If it's any consolation, it makes my blog here look pretty darn unvisited over the years.
If this article is still online, I'll still reply to any and all comments that warrant it. Never feel like an article you view here is too old to bother with. Comments are always welcomed!
Scroll down to comment
If you attempt to comment and it fails or you see an error message, please email me immediately.