Friday, August 24, 2007


I'm still on the tight assumption that no one's reading this sh*t I write, so I'll be brief.

For the small minority of people out there that maybe are reading, and even smaller subfraction of those that actually care, I hereby nickname you Casper (yes it's corny and lame, but its nearly 1 am so give me a friggin break).

Casper, a discussion on a SepiaMutiny thread erupted here that somehow meandered into the realm of "married women's dressing habits in social environments." The entire discussion is available here, however I will snip the relevant points without naming names (as the purpose of this post is to describe the phenomenon and not single any one person out)

[my comments in blue, 3rd party in magenta]

The background is pretty simple, a woman commented that she doesn't go to bars and clubs anymore, to which I asked a general question about why married or [seriously/long term] dating women still engage in the same activity as they did pre-LTR (wearing makeup, wearing designer/"club" clothes) when logically speaking, those activities were done primarily to attract men (or women, if that's your thing):

Which actually brings up sort of another point. why do married or dating women still wear all the makeup and designer clothes and go out?

A discussion went back and forth about how being 'off the market' doesn't preclude one from desiring to be attractive, but importantly the woman offered an anecodote about how repeated approaches from men in clubs are making her less and less interested in going to these types of places.

Again, looking at it from a practical point of view, I suggested in a half joke/half serious way (the preceeding comment was about spending too much time on the toilet):

"'re just a serious hottie that screams 'come talk to me' in her mannerism/body language in the alone time window when your fiance leaves your side..."

And now Casper, the response I got from this particular person with respect to these points was perfectly sound, however, it's the response from a 3rd party that I endearingly call a


And by no means is this an indictment specifically on the particular responder, rather I use it as an example of something I've observed in many, but not all women.

Here it is in part by part, with my response, and reasoning why I categorize this as I have:

Part 1:
"It sounds like you have a really specific idea of how married/taken women are supposed to behave. My decision to have a lifelong partner in crime didn't come with riders on how I'm supposed to dress!"

I never made any claim on what married/taken women are supposed to do. Only asked a question based on logical flow.

Part 2:
Yeah, and let me list some of the behaviors I've seen men read as "screaming 'come talk to me/grab my @ss/make obscene gestures at me'": Talking to a friend Reading in a coffee shop Walking down the street

Notice the effortless conflation of "come talk to me" with "grab my ass" as if the two undeniably go hand in hand. This is the heart of fem-aggeration. It's the assertion that any statement on female complicitness is blaming the 'victim.'

Casper, if you think I'm being disingenuous with my quoting, go back to the original thread and tell me where I ever made mention at physical touching or obscene gestures.

Part 3:
The whopper:

Because being alone in a bar (even if it's just because your husband is running late or in the bathroom) is like wearing a neon sign that says 'I NEED SEX', right? Yeesh.

This is the fem-aggeration gold medal. I don't even know where to begin on this. how did:

"or you're just a serious hottie that screams 'come talk to me' in her mannerism/body language"

equate to:

" like wearing a neon sign that says 'I NEED SEX'" ??

Again, the person to whom the original comment was directed responded accordingly, however it's the third party that in this case, practiced blantant fem-aggeration.

If any serious discussion is to proceed on these matters, the fairer sex has to try their darndest to not misrepresent statements of female contributions to the process in this way. In particular, augmenting the 'authorized' (eg speaking = grabbing) is something that's done all to seamlessly and all too often.

A distincion has to be made between a genuine, pre-relationship approach, and a run-of-the-mill crass comment, or drive by honking, etc...

There are many guys out there (for example, me) that do not approach at all if :

1. there's even a slight indication she's taken (wedding ring, dancing with guy on shoulder, etc..)
2. the female doesn't at least show some slight interest or 'receptiveness' to a potential approach.

With many men who think this way, it's not an outrageous thought to consider that the women who are being approached are actively doing something to encourage it (by dress, mannerism, body language, etc..)

Oh ya, that's me being brief, good night casper.

Tuesday, August 21, 2007

The fast walk-stomp

More notable than some other views I've held, it seems my views regarding 50% of the population garners the most attention. And no, I'm not talking about 50% who install their toilet paper so it rolls counter clockwise (vs clockwise), I'm talking about the 50% that are women.
While people watching in a certain place in NYC, an acquantance made an observation as a very fertile young woman walked acrossthe street:

"Look it's the fast walk-stomp, with a little ass shake",

first I thought he was mentioning some type of criminal con codename, a la Ocean's 11/12/13/14/15/however high they go, but no he was serious. He followed up the thought with, "she must be amazing in the sack"

But he made sure to differentiate the fast walk-stomp from just simply "walking fast" in walking fast, the person actually accelerates in the direction movement, you actually move faster to get from point A to point B. With the fast walk-stomp, some energy is actually directed downwards into the ground (hence the stomp) This effect is accentuated if the woman is walking indoors, with high heels, the sound will echo.

His theory was, these women just have excess energy running around, and it just needs to get dissipated somewhere. The ass shake is just a little flair that's added to the fast walk-stomp.

But is there a correlation? How much can you glean from a person's gait, also are women aware of this fast walk-stomp? I've certainly noticed the fast walk-stomp (as opposed to just walking fast) much more after this discussion and explanation from my acquaintance, however have yet to verify the other part of his claim.

Monday, August 20, 2007

I'm not a blogger, nor do I want to be

I have no intention of blogging.

Let me just make that clear. However, I've found myself having my opinions mangled and tangled, as well as making various slipson a bunch of blogs. In addition, I've had more than once people say to me, "I've followed your posts..." and usuallyfollow that up with some type of criticism or negative attack.

I'm a pretty private person, maybe a bit more so private than the average person, so even though it's just text, this is a bit strange for me. My prediction is no one will read this, or give two sh*ts, and that's fine, but it's more for me to clear the airabout a some certain points.

I was involved in a discussion recently that included the Nation of Islam (NOI) and found myself defending them and in particular their current spiritual head, the Min. Louis Farrakhan. This was a discussion that I had no intention of engaging in, as I hadn't brought up either topic.

If one looks at the core message of the NOI during its inception, it has nothing to do with the current characteristics and "dead weight" lets say that it's bogged down with.

Now, I understand posting a youtube clip will not sell my case completely, after all, it's black and white, the sound is a little off, the color temperature is not perfect. the onVP6 Flash Codec may come off as creepy, the intraframe compression might generate too many artifacts, people might want a high fidelity bit rate, or perhaps MPEG4 part10 compression scheme.

Viewers might not be able to handle it. Malcolm's voice might just be so daunting that, no matter what he's actually saying, people may hear "go kill every white person you see"

Still, I stare these potential obstacles in the eye, and hope that it's clear why I don't think it's cool to outright dismiss the organization as a hate group. Because the NOI wasn't formed for the purpose of intimidation, or extermination of any one group. That was never (and really still isn't) a component of its plan of action.

My apology if this is poorly construted, as I said before,

I have no intention of blogging.