Couldn't Resist

A small little blurb from David. I'm sensing a repeat for Fuckstick of the Year:

I've also changed the pic to one that truly symbolizes his full douchbaggery...Asshead weave necklace and all.



By David Wygant

One of the funniest things about Los Angeles is that you always feel like you are on a movie set. Here is a perfect example. (That IS funny)
The other night we went out to dinner, and sitting right behind us were Tom Hanks and Rita Wilson. (Here it comes….Wait for it.....) I was actually looking directly at Tom Hanks and had no clue that it was him, (There it is! David so isn’t into that—far too cool) until Sonja said to me “Did you see Tom Hanks sitting behind us?”
I am clueless when it comes to celebrities.(It Ain't just that, Asshole) I could be staring directly at a celebrity and would have no idea. That just shows you how much I don’t care about any of this! To me, people are just people. (Oh, wow. He’s so normal.)
Anyway, it’s Monday. Welcome to a new week and something with which I want to kick start it . . . (What theFUCK did the Tom Hanks shit have to do with any of this?!)
There is something that all of you need to do this week. You need to break up with some of your friends. (Oh, this is good. I have to take a moment here to confess something—when I do David’s SNC entries I don’t research in any way. I just randomly pick an entry and go with it.)
There are friends of yours who just really no longer suit your lifestyle. They could be friends with whom you just don’t have anything in common anymore. (So get rid of them. They had kids? Fuck ‘em. Crampin my style. David, most guys over 23 don’t go to Whole Foods and stalk women)
Think about why you’re still friends with some of your friends. Perhaps you shared your gum with them in the fifth grade and then got drunk together for the first time in the eighth grade, so you feel like there is a reason you should still be friends with them. (Shared gum?)
If they’re holding you back, though, you need to start breaking up with them. (We get it. Jesus.) You want to spend your time with people who don’t hold you back in life. (Yeah, man. Get out of my life. Why? You’re boring.) You want to be with people who actually share the same goals that you have. You want to be around people who want to move forward in life. (Paid by the word.)
So you need to go to take a good look at your phone, and you need to eliminate the numbers of people with whom you no longer connect. (I call my grandma about once every three weeks. She’s out.) You don’t have to physically break up with them. Don’t call them up or send them a letter. (Send them a letter? To tell them you're ending your friendship? Please tell me you’re joking. Please)
In your own head (and phone), you just need to start breaking up with the people who no longer fit your lifestyle. Life is about change. (Holy shit. WE GET IT!!!! Repeat yourself one more time, assbag and I’m flying out to Malibu or Santa Barbara or god knows whatever trendy bullshit town you live in and kicking you in the scrotum. And by scrotum I mean your face.)
Many of you out there get stuck in “stagnant world.” I have met people who will actually tell me, “I have all the friends I need.” If you have all the friends you’ll ever need, then you are not growing as a person. (Just go stalk them at Whole Foods)
I like to open my life to new friends every single day. If I can meet new friends, it means that I’m growing and learning new things. If you stick to a routine, you’ll never grow (Again, you just said this.)

Money Well Spent

By Carol Mithers

(OPRAH.com) (Fasten your set belts) -- The more science learns about how men are different from us (right down to the structure of their brains), the more we find ourselves hoping it will finally explain some age-old mysteries. For instance:

Study by BMW finds men view their cars as an extension of themselves. (The three guys who write this blog could care two shits about cars. Good start.)

Why do men keep their cars spotless but live like pigs at home -- while for women it's the other way around? (Umm...what?)
According to Simon Baron-Cohen, (Loved him in Borat) Ph.D., author of "The Essential Difference: Male and Female Brains and the Truth About Autism," (Autism?) men's neurological wiring tends to make them better at systems, while women are superiorly rigged for empathy. (I still can't figure out the goddamn garage door starter--strike one)
Which could help explain why -- although the culture is changing -- guys still take such pride in their machines, while women often care more about maintaining a clean home. (Cliches 101. Thanks, Oprah!)
Another clue comes from a 2007 study (conducted for BMW by a British team that included Oxford psychologists), which found that male drivers actually view their cars as extensions of themselves. (You already said this) Women, whose self-image is tied more directly to their bodies, are likely to think of their vehicles as separate entities, the authors suggest. But because men are less tuned-in to their bodies, they easily project their identity onto an object. If only that object were a sink full of dirty dishes. (Oh, she's a bad one)
Why do men like to watch violent sports, while a good number of women would rather do almost anything else? (Heeeeeeeeeere we go)
The truth is, football has a lot of female fans (44.3 million women watched the 2009 Super Bowl, for example).(Stop quoting this stat.) But guys are drawn to football (and boxing and wrestling) in ways that women aren't. (gee, this took a study?)

Men tend to be more aggressive, says Lucy L. Brown, Ph.D., (Paid. She was paid for this insight) a professor in the departments of neurology and neuroscience at Einstein College of Medicine in New York City. The difference likely involves hormones (like testosterone) and sensitivities to those hormones in parts of the brain such as the hypothalamus -- which, in animals, is associated with aggression. (I learned this in 5th grade Biology. Seriously. Who doesn't know this?)
Fine, but does he really have to shriek "Kill him!" (No man says this at a game. Never. If they did they would be mocked.) when the other team's quarterback is about to get sacked? Yes, he does: If you're a guy, watching your team win increases testosterone levels, according to a 1998 study in Physiology & Behavior. (It also is an escape from the never ending minutia details of life that we seem to have to go over 500 fucking times a week!)
Viewing combative sports also helps men identify with traditional ideals of masculinity like domination, risk taking, and competition, explains Douglas Hartmann, Ph.D., associate professor of sociology at the University of Minnesota. (I wanna party with this guy!)
"In fact," he says, "the less physically competitive his daily life is, the more sports can become a means toward achieving those ideals, at least in his mind." (I can feel the starch in his shirt)
Why can a man enthusiastically (very enthusiastically) sleep with a woman he knows he'll never see again? (Jumpin around much?)
Well, there's the old Evolution Did It theory: Men are hardwired to spread their seed; women, to find a mate who will protect the children she may bear. Physical differences may play a role, too. According to Lisa Diamond, Ph.D., an associate professor of psychology and gender studies at the University of Utah, not only do female rats have more extensive brain circuits for oxytocin -- which helps mammals to bond -- than males but in humans, women show greater release of the neurochemical during sex (especially orgasm) than men. (Men like to fuck. Women like to cuddle. Wow. The sexes figured out in one story!)
Also, biological anthropologist and Rutgers University professor Helen Fisher, Ph.D., notes: "The two brain hemispheres are less well connected in men than in women. This gives men the ability to focus on one thing at a time and be very goal oriented, whereas the female brain is built to assimilate many feelings at once, and to connect sex and love much more rapidly." (Got it)
Interesting, plausible theories all, (not really) but Lucy Brown cautions that we're still really just guessing. And in the end, the fact that men forever remain a bit of a mystery may be part of what keeps us intrigued. (Go shopping while the games on. Done.)

Her Name Is Jessica Wakeman And She Sounds Like A Keeper

Marriage seems to be the topic du jour lately. 

Sandra Tsing Loh of The Atlantic caused a minor internet stir with her treatise against marriage.  I implore everyone to give it a read.  It's like a baseball player who is bad at baseball things blaming the game itself for his shortcomings.  Aaron Traister's rebuttal in Salon offers something much more wonderfully nuanced and real. 

But maybe it's the recession causing people to reexamine value systems and maybe it's our culture's thorough embrace of unfettered narcissism finally coming to a head.

While I agree that way too many people get married (and get married for the wrong reasons) in the world, if you're going to make a case against marriage, the only prerequisite is you probably should write it well.

This...unfortunately...is not one of those. 

Via CNN.com (Natch)

By Jessica Wakeman

(The Frisky) -- There's a new book out called "Smart Girls Marry Money: How Women Have Been Duped Into the Romantic Dream -- And How They Are Paying For It," by Elizabeth Ford and Daniela Drake ($20 bet that, in between the lines, the real advice is for women to find a way to not have a job.  It fills a nice niche market, though:  People who realize that after every second date, they have nothing left to offer.  Boring people need tropes to conceal this fact.  Poof!  Marrying for money is the only way to go because marriage is stupid in the first place.). 

Love won't pay the bills, says author, so she plans to marry a man with money (I don't know.  Last time I checked, a jobbie-job paid the bills so unless you dream of wiping your ass with diamond-studded toilet paper, what's the real problem?) .

Forget for a moment that they annoyingly refer to grown women as "girls" in their title (Yes, that's the most annoying thing with this) and check out their thesis: because, for a variety of reasons, men earn more money than women, it's a wise move to marry someone who can provide for you and your family.

I haven't read the book (But let's write about it.  Let's.), so I have no idea if it is filled with sexist swill or not. But just reading Newsweek's article (!) about the book, it sounds like pretty sensible advice to me.

Before you get upset, I will acknowledge a bunch of things that I know to be true: yes, women earn less than men for a lot of sexist reasons and that discrimination must stop (Finally, a clarion call!  Rally around Jessica!).  Yes, mothers get "mommy-tracked" and their careers are stalled (Women have ovaries and men don't.  Read the inside of the boxtop).  And of course there are all kinds of misfires to the "marry rich" idea, such as the rich guy who is an a-hole (Being an asshole is just an example.  Not the overarching theme.  Just one...).  But that doesn't change the fact that marrying a man with money can be a better idea than marrying someone who is broke.

Take me, for instance.  I'm afraid I'm going to get tarred and feathered as a "bad feminist" for admitting this, but yeah, I do want to marry someone who can financially support both me and our kids. 

I'm not ashamed to "marry for money," if that's what would you can even call it, because I don't fundamentally believe it is the "man's role" to provide for women (Yes you do.  That's exactly what you're saying.  You just said it in the previous paragraph!!!!!).

My actual motivations, as I see them, are pure enough (Relativism is important in life.  Everyone must find a way to fit their own bullshit into a cohesive fairy tale that we can believe in).  I know of great guys out there -- journalists, teachers, non-profit dudes -- who will probably make great dads.  But I personally wouldn't pair up with them because, realistically, our two salaries together just wouldn't be enough to cut it for what I want out of life (Or "realistically", they didn't call you back after a slew of first dates).  But, but, but, "Bank accounts shouldn't matter at all!" And while I agree with that in theory, sorry, a man who can provide for me and our children is just much more attractive to me (OMG!!!  YOU JUST SAID IT'S NOT THE MAN'S ROLE TO PROVIDE FOR WOMEN!!!!!).

Bank accounts -- and debts -- do matter.  And acknowledging that doesn't make me a gold digger akin to Anna Nicole Smith -- it makes me smart (Keep telling yourself that.  As an aside, if and when some guy approaches the time when he might marry Jessica, do you think he might read some of her work?  Run away, man.  Run.  Away.) .

Right now, I rent an apartment in New York City (not cheap) and pay all my own bills myself (Jessica pays her own bills!  She's the kind of strong, independent woman we should all model ourselves after.). But I'm living at the edge of my own means as it is. I don't make a lot of money as a journalist, I owe lots of money to student loans and unless my future husband or I had a great job prospect someplace else, I don't want to live outside New York City, or very far from NYC, because that's where the media capital of the world is right now (No.  You want to marry and quit your job.  Then do some occasional freelancing like this crap to convince yourself you're still 'in it'). 

Maybe this isn't "feminist," but logically, I need to marry a guy who makes more money than I do -- preferably a lot more money than I do -- for us to be able to afford what I want and I hope he will want, too.  An apartment big enough for kids, prenatal care, doctors appointments, birthday presents, vacations, summer camp, college, their own car (um...what?), all that stuff.

I know parents can raise children well on much less.  But personally, that's not the lifestyle I grew up with.  I want to be able to give my children everything I had -- maybe a little less, maybe a little more -- because I think my parents did a great job (Because they gave you shit.  That's the essence of great parenting in Jessica's eyes.).

I also would immediately disqualify entering into a sharing-bank-accounts relationship with a man who proved to be irresponsible with his cash (At night, Jessica dreams of playing with someone else's money). College loan debt is fine (I've got it) and a reasonable balance on the credit card debt is understandable (I've got that, too) (If she's done it, it's fine.). But I couldn't wrap up my life or my children's lives around someone who spent or managed money irresponsibly.  I don't want to deal with that drama 'cause I know we'd just argue about it all the time (Take note.  The larger point is in a discussion about marriage, Jessica has yet to mention anything relating to marriage that doesn't revolve around money.  Where does the line form to marry Jessica?). 

True story: I used to babysit for a family where the mom was Latina and the dad was white; she was able to receive funding from the government to start her own business as part of some kind of "minority small business ownership program." (I seriously question the insertion of race here.  I offers no context to the story except to ickily mollify stupid people who can be swayed by white male bashing.)  

But really, her husband, who had been laid off after 9/11, ran the business and he hired my older brother to work for him.  Over the course of several months, my brother told me all about how this guy I babysat for spent money willy-nilly and eventually ran his business into the ground.  Not surprisingly, this couple separated and I think eventually divorced.  The last time I saw the mother, there was a moving truck in front of their house. 

I realize that's just one anecdotal story, but I'm sharing it to demonstrate a larger point: there is nothing feminist about assuming your partner's debt (But that's not a case for marrying money and finding a man that can provide for women.  It's a case for not marrying a fucking loser.  There's a difference).  And it goes both ways -- I wouldn't blame a man for not wanting to marry a woman who spent money irresponsibly.

Couples' finances are intertwined with one another and if he screws you up, or you screw up him, bad stuff is gonna happen to both of you.  That's why a man who makes a decent amount of money and is responsible with it will always, always be more attractive to most women (But that is not what Jessica said at least three times.  She said she is looking for a guy to "provide for her and her family" while simultaneously saying it's "not fundamentally a man's role to provide for" her and her family.  I can already see the personal ad in a few years:  SWF seeking someone else's bank account.  Love not necessary because I have little to offer as a human being.  Money fills the void quite nicely.)