The number and qualifications for categories developed by trendy magazines and opinion makers to classify men has now officially become ridiculous. As if heterosexual and homosexual weren’t enough – the metrosexual man is the man that embodies the classic traits of masculinity while exuding an outwardly – for lack of a better word – GAY appearance and displaying a penchant for traditionally female luxuries like pedicures and facials. And now, the penultimate – uber-sexual – the man who maintains the “better” points of the masculine persona augmented with desire and deep rooted passions.
I’ve noticed the lack of trendy categories to pigeon-hole women. Of course there are the standard girly-girl, tomboy and dike labels, but they lack the panache to entice women to aspire to their demanding credentials. Therefore, borrowing liberally from the Hillman Morning Show on WAAF, I’ve come up with the newest trendy label for today’s power woman to aim for – the MANTOWN-sexual.
The MANTOWN-sexual female displays an outwardly, over-feminine physique, while maintaining the finer personality characteristics of a man. To further define the physicality: MANTOWN-sexual women can be either petite or tall; however, they never have a hint of body fat. MANTOWN-sexual women don’t necessarily have breast enhancements; however, it is not frowned upon. MANTOWN-sexual women aren’t always strippers, but they could easily be mistaken for one. MANTOWN-sexual women generally dress in tight fitting clothes that expose strategic areas of skin; for example, the belly, upper thighs and cleavage (both breast and/or buttocks).
The personality of the MANTOWN-sexual woman can best be compared to the classic tomboy. She is athletic and enjoys sports even though she may not be able to tell the difference between a baseball and a football. She possesses a keen knack for culinary creations and is always ready to provide alcoholic beverages at a moments notice. She is eager to please and may act quite lady-like. While, belching during a beer chugging with the boys is not out of the realm of possibilities, the MANTOWN-sexual woman makes it seem rather classy.
Perhaps most importantly, MANTOWN-sexual women relish sex. In fact, sex with relish and other condiments – including whipped cream and chocolate sauce – is highly encouraged. MANTOWN-sexual women are no strangers to first, second or third input and are always dehydrated after sex sessions demanding a “big gulp” to quench their thirst. In fact, the adage “a virgin in the parlor and a whore in the bedroom” may best describe the duality of the MANTOWN-sexual woman.
It may seem difficult to delicately balance the demands of lady-like behavior with male exuberance coupled with an unbridled sex lust, but to the MANTOWN-sexual woman, there is no other way to be.
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
Follow the Leader
Eliminate the classic definition of a follower – a lemming easily lead by a convincing leader – and the individual remaining would emerge quite the principal. This paradox is realized by the very quality that distinguishes a follower – indecisiveness.
The momentary hesitation of an individual to react to influencing circumstances can be a downfall in times of utmost urgency. However, temporary vacillation allows the seeming experts to weigh in with their knee-jerk opinions. Given the plethora of pundits available to expound upon any given topic, giving pause allows an open mind to review data from several sources and create a well-informed, educated decision based upon facts and the best course of action for the long term investment.
Of course, there needs to be “leaders” – those willing to speak out based upon personal convictions and prior precedent without fully evaluating all sides of the impending argument. Unfortunately, the majority of people today promote these doomsayers to expert status instead of reviewing and appraising their judgment. The ability to think for ourselves gives the follower an advantage in most situations calling for discernment and scrutiny.
There will be no replacement of instinctual reaction or prescience; however, a role reversal of big-mouthed leaders and those who implement their pronouncements may create a more stable and sustaining atmosphere. Leave the knee-jerk reactions to the loud-mouthed aggressors and let the unbiased purposeful sage render actionable decrees.
The momentary hesitation of an individual to react to influencing circumstances can be a downfall in times of utmost urgency. However, temporary vacillation allows the seeming experts to weigh in with their knee-jerk opinions. Given the plethora of pundits available to expound upon any given topic, giving pause allows an open mind to review data from several sources and create a well-informed, educated decision based upon facts and the best course of action for the long term investment.
Of course, there needs to be “leaders” – those willing to speak out based upon personal convictions and prior precedent without fully evaluating all sides of the impending argument. Unfortunately, the majority of people today promote these doomsayers to expert status instead of reviewing and appraising their judgment. The ability to think for ourselves gives the follower an advantage in most situations calling for discernment and scrutiny.
There will be no replacement of instinctual reaction or prescience; however, a role reversal of big-mouthed leaders and those who implement their pronouncements may create a more stable and sustaining atmosphere. Leave the knee-jerk reactions to the loud-mouthed aggressors and let the unbiased purposeful sage render actionable decrees.
Friday, October 07, 2005
Thursday, October 06, 2005
No Sex for Sex Offenders
CNN published a news story today with the link, "State won't pay for sex offenders' Viagra". I though it was just a statement, but no, it was actually a story about how the Govern-ator of California - Arnold Schwarzenegger - signed a sex crimes bill that amended a law that had allowed state funded health insurance to pay for erectile dysfunction medication. I would have thought this was impossible but the article went on to say federal funding for such medication was ended after a New York audit found sex offenders benefiting from the free program.
This may not be a result of big versus small government or cutting versus funding social programs – this may just be plain stupidity. With this logic, we should ensure that all arsonists have a continuous supply of matches and all bulimics have a continuous supply of food to throw up and all cocaine addicts get free blow without minor issues such as cocaine being an illegal narcotic or other silly such fuss.
When I rule the world, this kind of stuff won’t happen.
This may not be a result of big versus small government or cutting versus funding social programs – this may just be plain stupidity. With this logic, we should ensure that all arsonists have a continuous supply of matches and all bulimics have a continuous supply of food to throw up and all cocaine addicts get free blow without minor issues such as cocaine being an illegal narcotic or other silly such fuss.
When I rule the world, this kind of stuff won’t happen.
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
Monday, October 03, 2005
Agnostic Justices
With the recent Supreme Court vacancies, we were all awaiting a political Armageddon manifested in the form of nominations and confirmations for new justices. The Roberts confirmation was rather uneventful compared to the spectacle we were promised by pundits. Perhaps the Miers confirmation will be more confrontational for the Senate committee. However, if all justices abided by the strict constructionist viewpoint that I was taught in civics, none of this should really matter.
In a simple elementary school definition, the judicial branch of government interprets the laws; the legislative branch makes them. Therefore, legislating from the bench should not be a concern if our justices were trusted to interpret laws based on precedent rather than creating laws based on personal convictions.
While evaluating some cases, there will be no precedents against which to measure. It is these cases where the personal philosophies of the justices are of the utmost concern. The desire to create precedent based on personal principles is tempting; however, our justices must not succumb to its temptation. Instead, more obscure, loosely related precedents must be reviewed for guidance while keeping in mind the strict guidelines set forth in the United States Constitution. Looking to foreign law and international sentiment is not acceptable for a sovereign nation’s self governance.
The Supreme Court’s rulings are rendered by nine justices by a majority rule. This helps to diffuse the partisan nature of personal politics by diluting the individual’s power. I tend to think close 5-4 decisions would not occur down party lines if the justices strictly adhered to case law rather than self-created law. I wonder how many decisions would be correct – in terms of keeping with precedent and the Constitution – as opposed to siding with the opinions based on feelings of conservative or liberalism. We may not “morally” agree with a decision, but we have less to argue when it is based on established foundations of our republic.
In a simple elementary school definition, the judicial branch of government interprets the laws; the legislative branch makes them. Therefore, legislating from the bench should not be a concern if our justices were trusted to interpret laws based on precedent rather than creating laws based on personal convictions.
While evaluating some cases, there will be no precedents against which to measure. It is these cases where the personal philosophies of the justices are of the utmost concern. The desire to create precedent based on personal principles is tempting; however, our justices must not succumb to its temptation. Instead, more obscure, loosely related precedents must be reviewed for guidance while keeping in mind the strict guidelines set forth in the United States Constitution. Looking to foreign law and international sentiment is not acceptable for a sovereign nation’s self governance.
The Supreme Court’s rulings are rendered by nine justices by a majority rule. This helps to diffuse the partisan nature of personal politics by diluting the individual’s power. I tend to think close 5-4 decisions would not occur down party lines if the justices strictly adhered to case law rather than self-created law. I wonder how many decisions would be correct – in terms of keeping with precedent and the Constitution – as opposed to siding with the opinions based on feelings of conservative or liberalism. We may not “morally” agree with a decision, but we have less to argue when it is based on established foundations of our republic.
Posts
