Friday, October 24, 2014

Experts in subjective subjects aren't.


Pranksters Trick Foodies Into Praising McDonald's: "In a setup that would make Jimmy Kimmel green with envy, two Dutch pranksters visited a major culinary convention to show off their new line of delicious, organic food—actually bog standard McDonald's fare, just cut up and skewered with toothpicks. Predictably, everyone at the food expo in Houten claimed they loved the "new organic meal." The food got positive marks for its complex flavors, with eaters declaring it tastier and much better for you than Mickey D's."

Still doing it wrong, Liberia.  Gay community under attack in Liberia over Ebola outbreak | Reuters: "Leroy Ponpon doesn't know whether to lock himself in his flat in Monrovia because of the deadly Ebola virus, or because he is gay. Christian churches' recent linking of the two have made life hell for him and hundreds of other gays. Ponpon, an LGBT campaigner in the Liberian capital, says gays have been harassed, physically attacked and a few have had their cars smashed by people blaming them for the hemorrhagic fever, after religious leaders in Liberia said Ebola was a punishment from God for homosexuality."

Sexy |: "...most women also lack a fundamental understanding of the male sexual impulse. As I’ve stated in prior threads, until women are steeped in 17 times their normal testosterone levels, they will never understand the male experience with regards to sex. When a woman utters the words “I don’t understand why sex is such a big deal for guys”, she’s speaking the truth. She can’t know, but along with that comes a disconnect between her lack of understanding the male sexual impulse and her fem-centric social conditioning of what sex should be like for him. “I find the whole concept of being ‘sexy’ embarrassing and confusing.” 

She doesn’t understand how to be sexy, but few women do because it is Men who’ve classically defined what is sexy and feminine in women. What has historically worked as sexy, and what has been historically confirmed as feminine is defined by the response and effect that particular behavior set evokes from Men. What we consider today as sexy behaviors and appearance were characteristics ‘selected-for’ that endured to become gender indicative aspects of being feminine. The inverse of this is true for women; women define what is sexy in men. The problem women have with being sexy in the last 50+ years is illustrated in Emma’s next point: “I know everyone wants a picture of me in a mini-skirt. But that’s not me. I feel uncomfortable. I’d never go out in a mini-skirt. Personally, I don’t even think it’s that sexy.” On a rudimentary biological level, Emma actually does know what is sexy (i.e. what turns Men on about women), but she is “uncomfortable” in being so. 

Her refusal or discomfort in being so is where the feminine imperative picks up the banner and runs with it...  Like all contemporary women, she wants to define what sexy should be for men using metrics that she is comfortable with. The problem, as with all things fem-centric, is that this social push to redefine for men what they should find sexy slams headlong into Men’s biological imperatives...

Quite honestly I think seduction is a lost art for women... so seduction practices aren’t reinforced for her. Now add to this the feminine priority westernized culture has placed on women’s sexuality. Any woman feeling a need to be seductive for a man is cast in the role of putting his sexual value above her own. Remember, according to Cosmo and Oprah it is he who needs to be sensitive to her needs. Her sexuality is a GIFT he qualifies for, not something she should ever feel a need to sell to him by means of seduction.  Women don’t need to seduce men anymore. The feminine-priority dynamic has put a default value on women’s sexuality. Those hot enough to simply wear something revealing never need seduction, and those not hot enough can’t sell it anyway. And the girls who’re in between – the one’s who’d benefit most – are discouraged from learning seduction since it’s denigrating to women who should already be on a pedestal to begin with.  Ever since the sexual revolution there’s been less and less motivation for women to develop seduction skills. If anything there’s a resentment for ever having needed them in the past. "

The Department of Homeland Security Goes on a Panty Raid - Hit & Run : Reason.com: "In 2002, the Bush administration issued a formal proposal outlining the reasoning for the creation a new, cabinet-level bureaucracy, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). "The changing nature of the threats facing America requires a new government structure to protect against invisible enemies that can strike with a wide variety of weapons," the proposal explained. "America needs a single, unified homeland security structure that will improve protection against today’s threats and be flexible enough to help meet the unknown threats of the future." Without DHS, America would never be safe...

Flash forward to 2014. The Department of Homeland Security has a $39 billion annual budget. It is fighting the fight against our invisible enemies, and taking on the unknown threats of the future. By confiscating baseball-themed women's underwear from enthusiastic local retailers. The Kansas City Star reports on Peregrine Honig, who created the design for "Lucky Royals" women’s boyshorts, featuring the words "take the crown" and a "KC" logo emblazoned on the rear, in honor of the Kansas City Royals baseball team making it to the World Series. Honig was going to sell the boyshorts in her store, Honig’s Birdies Panties. Then a pair of DHS agents stopped by...

She thought that since the underwear featured her hand-drawn design that she was safe. But the officers explained that by connecting the "K" and the "C," she infringed on major league baseball copyright. (The officials involved could not be immediately reached for comment.) They placed the underwear in an official Homeland Security bag and had Honig sign a statement saying she wouldn’t use the logo. Don't you feel safer now?" 


Torture May Not Be So Bad When You're Using the Bamboo Splinters, Obama Administration Decides - Hit & Run : Reason.com: "Like so many other things Barack Obama thought were so terrible about his predecessor in office—war in Iraq, executive orders, lack of transparency—he may have decided that torture isn't so bad when you're on the delivering end...

Note that the president issued an executive order in 2009 formally banning the use of torture. Then, in August, he shrugged his shoulders and admitted, "we tortured some folks" in what was taken as a suggestion that this nasty stuff was no more on his watch.  But after the State Department proposed at this half-way point through the second term of an administration nominally opposed to torture to formally repudiate the Bush administration's legal rationale for the practice, it apparently occurred to administration officials that doing so would mean they'd really have to stop. Which is awfully commitment-y for a White House that has settled so comfortably into many policies it once opposed."


No comments:

Post a Comment