Born? Forlorn? Adorn?

So I opened up my computer this morning and there was an unnamed word document on my desktop. I thought to myself, “what do we have here?” opened it up and got these four words:

Nothing rhymes with pornography?

This happens occasionally now. After I starting writing this stupid blog, I started jotting down my topic ideas when they would randomly occur to me. Typically I do this only after I’ve poured a few cocktails down my head, the only time I think blogging is a good idea. That particular jewel of a theme was brought to you by the fine people at Bushmills. So later, I read these things and wonder how I ever thought I would be able to produce a funny article examining how the word “pornography” doesn’t lend itself to the crafting of poetry.

I’ll open up the notepad function on my blackberry and it’ll say something like “Pregnancy is so weird. Babies growing inside of you.” I’ll find myself in some sort of surreal conversation with an inebriated version of myself who leaves strange notes to me to find later. I’m a cross between Sybil and that stupid Keanu Reeves movie “The Lakehouse”. How’s that for bizarre? It’s like having a really stupid but oddly insightful pen-pal who dreams up wacky stuff to write about, and then expects me to do the actual heavy lifting.

I think that writing down creative or interesting things immediately when they happen is actually a good idea though. How often have you heard or thought something that struck an odd chord in you, but then you forgot it because of all the noise and clatter that goes along with being alive? Here’s a few other things that I’ve heard or thought about lately that were very aptly said by people in my life, with a little surrounding context:

Talking about dumb girls with a musician buddy from home: He likes women that “use their thoughts to think things.” (well said damnit)

Asking my bro how he does what he does on so little sleep: “I just hate myself out of bed in the morning.” (Fierce!)

Personal motto of an cool old roommate I had: “You might not like me, but your parents will fuckin’ LOVE me.” (the anthem of WASPy professional types who are total pricks but who are (let’s face it) exactly who your mom wants you to end up with)

Pop Culture and Rational Decision-makers

I hate a lot of things about pop culture. On the other hand, I HATE a lot of things about how people complain about pop culture. Being angry about the fact that Paris Hilton is famous is the equivalent of being angry about the fact that coffee cost 5 dollars a cup at Starbucks.

Some prick: “This isn’t worth five bucks! It’s just water and coffee beans!” (points to the cup of coffee in his hand)

Prick who took intro to microeconomics: “I just watched you hand that guy five bucks in exchange for that cup of coffee.”

Some prick: “Yeah, but….” (awkward pause) “Fuck”

We are what we eat ladies and gentlemen. We are a nation of haters.

Hater: someone who dislikes or resents or disapproves of a player (the term is used to criticize people who are jealous or who don't respect successful people). ~ Urban Dictionary

The reason famous people are successful is not that they have any greater intrinsic value than anyone else. They are not the smartest, or the fastest, or even the best looking. They are the objects of our attention because they are the objects of other people’s attention. We require a frame of reference in order to relate to each other. Famous people provide this frame of reference. Basically, we find it more interesting to talk about who a complete stranger is sleeping with than to talk about something that has a more relevant impact on our own lives.

Relevant isn’t even the right word. Relevant implies that people have better shit to do with their time. Every day thousands of people choose to read People magazine rather than read Shakespeare. This means that either People magazine is more valuable than Shakespeare, or thousands of people make bad decisions every day. And the answer is…. ding, ding, ding… People magazine is more valuable than Shakespeare. That’s right, I said it. By any standard that matters (money, effort or time) people would rather ingest what dress Kate Bosworth wore to the Oscars than find out what Hamlet did to smoke out Claudius. As much as it pains me to say it, this is a rational decision. (See, I couldn’t even do it without italics) Pretending it’s irrational is a paternalistic waste of time. Imposing what I think people should be on what people are doesn’t change anything. Fuck it. Everybody loves Kate Bosworth.

Bo Derek

I read an article recently talking about the old “on a scale of one to ten” ranking system for evaluating how hot a girl is. This has got to be the closest thing we have to a universal system for the evaluation and degradation of the female gender, but despite its ubiquity it has some serious flaws. I therefore taken it upon myself to establish what shall be, after an appropriate time frame for feedback and discussion amongst my distinguished colleagues (i.e. dudes I know), the new standard for the assignment of one to ten numbers to all of the women of the world.

As an initial matter I think that it is important to point out the major weaknesses in the current system. That is, that what is a 7 to one guy is a 5 to another, what is a 9 to one dude is a 6.5 to someone else. Here I am not talking about inevitable differences in tastes and preferences (for example, my bizarre attraction to freckles) that lead people to rate the attractiveness of people differently, but rather the failure of the ranking system itself to establish a consistent method for number assignment. I think that failure can be fairly attributed to three different issues: (i) our underlying conception of the scale itself, (ii) the population which actually makes up the scale, and (iii) those attributes that can be appropriately considered when making a number assignment.

First, we have different conceptions of the makeup of the scale. Does it represent a bell curve, with all of the women of the world regularly distributed? Or alternatively, is it purely a substitute for what percentile of the population the person happens to fall into?

Second, who makes up the population that the girl is ranked against? Is it simply the entire female population of the country/world? Is it a local standard? What about old ladies and children? Wouldn’t including these people artificially inflate the numbers of the skanks to which we apply the system? Is this in fact a good thing, so that we might be less embarrassed when we tell “that story” about the time we were in a bit of a slump and drank all that jager/tequila/Irish car bombs, etc.

Third and finally, is it in fact appropriate to consider non physical attributes when making a number determination. I don’t think anyone would deny that certain non-physical characteristics can go a long way towards making someone more attractive: a sexy accent, a great laugh, an original sense of humor, a Victoria’s Secret Angel Halloween costume. All of these things can make a girl more attractive, but is it better for the system to make the number award in the metaphorical vacuum, only considering a person’s concrete and tangible features?

In order for the scale to be useful, then we must all have the same understanding of what constitutes an appropriate score in every case. After considering the current application of the system, and what would be the most efficient and economical method for its usage, I feel that the following is the best resolution to the current problems with the scale. I will address each issue individually, in each case advancing my reasons for the final decision.

First, the scale itself must be considered as a representation of a bell curve. To look at it otherwise would result in the award of far too many very high and very low numbers. Average should be a five, and therefore most girls should receive fours, fives, and sixes. I think there are far too many sevens and above being awarded currently. We must not allow grade inflation to creep into our skank rating systems. The business of objectification and debasement of women must remain pure. Note that as a result of using a regular distribution concept, tens should only be awarded to statistical outliers, truly outrageous female specimens.

Second, I think to maximize our system’s utility the population considered must be universal. A seven should be a seven whether you are in Boston, New York or Miami, if this results in there being nothing but threes in New Jersey, then too damn bad. Fuck New Jersey. I also think that the system should take into account only women of certain ages. For purposes of me not being arrested, let’s call that age range 18- 45. Any older or younger and you are outside the scope of the system’s applicability. From now on, any assignment of a one to ten number to a female outside of this range must be qualified with a “for her age” disclaimer.

Third, non-physical characteristics must not be considered when making a number assignment. If your homely girlfriend is funny, rich, and has a sweet Australian accent, then you can just explain that shit after you finish admitting that she is a four. Suck it up. Introducing more subjectivity into the scale can only weaken it’s usefulness for communicating hotnessness and cheapening women. So from this point forward, no docking points on evil bitches, and no charity points for cool chicks. It’s a pure meritocracy… a hotocracy, if you will. Footnotes and asterisks are fine, but no fudging the numbers.

There you have it folks. Wow, that turned awkwardly long and serious.