RSS Feed
Random
Archive
MobileMy beef with Kobe
By Blake Townsley Howdy folks. Welcome to Friday, and a world where the Kardashian sisters are hitting .667 in dating/marrying world champion athletes after Lamar Odom and the rest of the Kobeonettes helped Kobe Bryant win his fifth championship. A world where that average would rise to .750 if there was a World Series of Douchebaggery for Kourtney’s impregnator to compete in. Snark aside, this is an interesting trend. I’m thinking about starting a petition for Cubs fans to sign which demands immediate nuptials for Alfonso Soriano and Kim Kardashian. But assuming my ability to influence the E Network isn’t as impressive as I think it is, I’ll probably just keep close tabs on Kim’s social life and make some early season bets in Vegas on the Bulls winning it all. You know, assuming Dwyane Wade walked into the South Beach Kardashian boutique and made eyes at Kim. And assuming Dwyane Wade and LeBron sign in Chicago in a couple weeks. What? Wishful thinking? Yeah, I know. I still think the Bulls are going to sign LeBron, despite the fact that the feel-good story is King James reigning in Cleveland forever. Let’s face it, Cleveland’s citywide sports psyche could use some good news. For the last thirty years it’s been the sports equivalent of the bullied nerd in high school whose parents refuse to step in because they think getting beat up frequently is necessary for learning how to succeed in life. But for now, I’m clinging to a hope that LBJ comes to Chicago, because LeBron on the Bulls seems like the only way the Bulls will win a title in the post-Jordan era. And also, someone has to stop Kobe Bryant’s reign of terror and prevent the inevitable, inane arguments from Lakers fans that Kobe was as good a player as MJ just because he won as many championships. I’m not kidding, if Kobe wins a sixth ring next year with the Lakers, life as we know it will cease to exist. Mostly because if I have to hear that comparison between Kobe and MJ, debated ad nauseam on ESPN, my head will explode. Let’s just get this straight once and for all, Laker fans. Kobe Bryant is an unbelievable player, a no-doubt Hall of Famer with incredible talent for scoring, great defense and an impressive list of accomplishments. But he’s not MJ. Admittedly, I’m no NBA insider. What little I know of Kobe and MJ comes from the same sources y’all have. But watching Kobe over these past few years, he just seems like a selfish brat more concerned with his own legacy than anything else. And there lies the difference. Sure, His Airness was capable of incredible cruelty to his own teammates, but that was done in the privacy of the Berto Center, not on a nationally televised game. Kobe has no problems staring down teammates during games, taking off entire halves, and generally acting like he needs to remind people that he’s the alpha dog. Here’s a tip, Kobe. If you need to remind people that you’re the alpha dog, you’re really not. MJ never needed to remind anyone, because everyone just knew. I’m not going to belabor this point quite yet, though that day may come in a year or two. For now, I am going to relax, and wish the Lakers and their fans congratulations on last night’s championship. It’s a great feeling to have your team win it all, and I hope everyone enjoys it. But enjoy it responsibly. Don’t make me sic the Kardashian sisters on Utah or San Antonio. I don’t think those towns can handle it quite yet. (Credits: Image by laffy4k)
Are Women Who F*ck on the First Date Slutty?
By Jackie Summers
Before I respond to the question du jour, let me make this perfectly
clear: I am not pro-feminist. I’m anti-bullshit, which in my mind
means requiring adults of both genders to own responsibility for their
behavior, sexual and otherwise.
As I’ve already devoted at least a thousand words to the question of
whether women who fuck on the first date are sluts, this time around
I’ve decided to augment my theories with the use of pictures. Using
the most advanced tools available I’ve compiled the following
absolutely scientific data.
Exhibit A: Are Women Who Fuck on the First Date Sluts?
The answer is: sometimes. Let’s do the math: some women have sex on
the first date. Some women are sluts. Technically that means some
women who have sex on the first date are sluts. Choosing to act on
sexual chemistry instead of postponing overpowering desire doesn’t
constitute promiscuity. If you weren’t a slut before you got down and
dirty the first night, you won’t wake up magically transformed into a
woman of ill repute the next morning.
You have to say the things and do the things that really matter to you
today without hesitation, because you don’t know if you’re going to
get another chance. Sometimes, tomorrow never comes. At the same time,
you have to live with the awareness that every stone thrown into a
pond sends ripples across the surface, and every choice you make today
reverberates into your future. If you don’t want to deal with the
repercussions of your actions tomorrow, you should consider the
consequences of your decisions today carefully.
So why does this antiquated notion that women who “put out” are easy, persist?
Exhibit B: Society and The Double Standard
Most men will not pass up the opportunity for sex on the first date. Or the second. Or ever. Some people however, are judgmental assholes. If a man stigmatizes you because you are sexually attracted enough to sleep with him, or is
narcissistic enough to believe a woman doesn’t have the same sexual
needs-slash-desires as he has, this man is a hypocrite.
The invasive nature of the sexual act means that men and women have
different reactions to the aftermath. When to have sex for the first
time is a tricky question. Some (but not all) of the many factors that
go into this equation are: How long have you known this person? Are
you looking for a serious relationship or a fling? Are you both
emotionally mature enough to deal with the consequences of entering a
sexual relationship? Do you feel safe, desired, respected, and will
you continue to, post coitus?
This complex set of variables forms a unique fingerprint for every
couple; hard, fast rules don’t apply. The best sex is based on
connection, and that which is worth having is worth waiting for. If
that determination can be made within hours instead of weeks, both
parties should feel free to indulge, with no guilt or loss of respect.
Know what you’re getting into and who you’re getting into it with,
feel the flow of energy, and go with it.
Exhibit C: Does Having Sex on the First Date Disqualify Me for a
Serious Relationship?
Of the healthy adults who maintain an active sex life, only a fraction
manage to do this inside the boundaries of a happy monogamous
relationship. If you are lucky enough to find yourself in one of these, it probably has very little to do with early intimacy and everything to do with
chemistry, hard work, and commitment.
There’s a growing camp that believes that making a man wait for sex—be
it ninety days or a predetermined number of dates—increases your
chances of landing a mate. I would have done a venn-diagram
representing these people, except it would have been a single circle
with the word ‘delusional’ in the center. Grown ass folks, fuck. If
you’re intent on you enforcing a coochie embargo in the (vain) hopes
you’ll be taken more seriously, you’d best make peace with the reality
that your prospective partner is probably indulging in adult behavior with someone else in the meantime. If you’re not fucking him, somebody else is (see
exhibit A).
Waiting to ensure chemistry and allowing tension to develop naturally
is a wondrous thing. It is also no guarantee the sex will be good. Few
things are more disheartening than spending time and energy in an
individual, only to discover you’re sexually incompatible after you’re
emotionally invested.
This I know from experience.
Just because we don’t live in an ideal world doesn’t mean we should
abandon our ideals. Sluts, judgmental assholes, hypocrites and
delusional people have existed since the dawn of time, and don’t seem
to be vanishing. Try not to have sex with them, and more importantly,
don’t allow their view of you to color your view of yourself. After
all, what is the real reason women get called sluts in the first place?
Exhibit D:
Myths Of Pick Up Part 1
By Magic I recently spoke at a Dating Conference in New York. After the conference lot of student came to me for discussion and I realized that there are lot people who are victims of “Pick Up Myths”. I decided to address this once and for all. In this two part news letter I will first discuss ten myths that you need to ignore. Then I will hand you a list certain components that you need to add to your game to succeed with beautiful women. Here are the myths: Every time I teach a workshop or give a seminar, I ask students to raise hands if they approach perfect 10s’ on regular basis. Hardly one or two students raise hands. Talk to any good looking women and they will tell you that they hardly get approached. The worst thing you can do to limit your success with women is to have a wingman. If the wingman does not know what he is doing he will destroy your interaction. If he is better than you he will get all the attention and you will stand empty hand. Neg’s only work on insecure women. Why would you date a woman like that? I only date women who are worthy. I let them know that I admire them for who they are. This does not make me needy it makes me a confident person who goes after what he likes. It’s the shy guy who has trouble getting laid. I am a nice guy because I do not lie or cheat but I get laid on regular basis. You do not have to play games or tricks to pull a woman into your sack. You just have to act like a man to seduce her. Sure, every woman craves to go back home to play with her jack rabbit. Women are just as sexual as men. They only sleep with men that are sexual, non judgmental and safe. If you know how to demonstrate the combination of three you will be fine. Amog refers to “Alpha Male Other Guys”. I have personally seen women walk away when two guys fought over her. Trying to show off makes you come across as insecure. Learn the right way on how to win the woman without getting into a competition. Another guy talking to my target is a bonus for me. She will now realize what a catch I am. THINK DIFFERENT! Either you have value or you don’t. If you are valuable no need to demonstrate it will reflect. If you are not nothing will make it happen. I always lower my value. I tell women upfront that I am broke, losing hair, and can’t speak proper English. I get laid all the time. I love when another guy brags his success to a woman in front of me. He comes across as trying too hard and makes me appear relaxed and nothing to prove. There is a popular belief among top dating coaches that if women find out early on that you want them they will run away. I let every woman know that the only thing I want from them is a man - woman relationship. This is exactly what I teach my students. No wonder 3 out of 4 students I trained last year got laid within a week of my training. And no wonder other companies are still struggling to get their coaches laid. Don’t hide your intentions if nothing else women will be flattered that you find them desirable. Seduction happens very fast. You can spend hours before you go for the kiss but you do not have to. If you want to have a one night stand there is no way on this planet that you wait 3 hours before initiating the first kiss. You gotta go for the kiss within the first 30 minutes and pull her for sex in an hour. Never do that unless the woman asks for it. Women usually have silent competition. When you go for the kiss in front of her friends she feels rewarded. Make sure to win all of her friends before you go for the kiss so no one objects. If her friends like you she or if her friends approve of you she will have no problem getting sexual with you. Learn to operate in social groups. The concept of time bridge is to set up a date 7 days in advance because women are busy and they make plans. I got some news for you: If a woman does not enjoy your company she won’t show up for the date just because she said she would. And if she really cares to be with you she will cancel her plans to join you. Learn how to generate unstoppable and uncontrollable attraction so she wants to be with you and you won’t need any time bridging. I’ll continue in the next part. Until then… -Magic (Credits : Image by Alyssa L. Miller )
Online Date Fail: How to Handle It
By Samantha Scholfield
Sometimes — even when the chemistry online is so hot any other outcome but life-long bliss seems impossible — when you meet said online profile in person, it can be a there’s-no-way-this-would-ever-work-out disaster. This isn’t anyone’s fault. The Internet can only give us so many hints about whether or not we’ll be compatible, attracted to and/or have chemistry with someone when we meet them in the physical realm. Beyond the obvious problems that can potentially arise from dishonest or exaggerated profiles, there are things you get in person — how you feel around them, smell, body language, how attractive they are to you in three dimensions — that you can’t get through IMing, emailing and profile stalking.
So what happens when you encounter an online-arranged date fail? When things don’t stack up in person and you know it, how long do you hang in there before bailing, and what do you say?
I think most would agree that hanging in there for 20-30 minutes is both long enough to show respect for the person who took time out of their day to come meet with you and also to give any potential bonding a fair shot, but isn’t so long that either you or they will feel like they wasted their whole afternoon on a date that went nowhere. The 20-30 minute goal is a perfect argument for why first online dates should be drinks or coffee based, and not meal based. Unless you’re grabbing hot dogs from a street stand, a meal will almost definitely commit you to more than 30 minutes. Anyone who has gone on a few bad online dates knows the wisdom of not roping yourself into an extended period of time with someone you may actively have anti-chemistry with.
As far as how to politely and respectfully bail after you’ve burned your tongue on your coffee in an effort to speed the 20 minutes along, I’m from the camp of just being honest — not brutally so, but honest enough that your feelings are clear about any potential future dates with this person. Something like the following works well: “Hey, thanks for the drink” (if they bought) or “Thanks for meeting me for coffee”, followed by, “It was really nice to meet you, but I’m just not feeling a connection, romantically. I wish you the best.” You’re being straight up about not feeling anything for them, which isn’t arguable — you feel how you feel. Being honest during the date and letting them know where you stand is a more stand-up way to deal with non-connection than to not return emails or phone calls in a few days when they ask you for a second installment.
Sometimes, the anti-romantic chemistry is present on both sides, and being honest will result in a friendship — one you may not have fostered if one or both of you turned to the unanswered emails and phone calls route. If one of you feels it and the other doesn’t, being honest may feel a bit brutal, but will ultimately be respected more than the alternative. I know I’d much rather hear it straight than be ignored.
Yours in stand-up honesty, S
(Credits: Image by www.charlietphoto.com)
Phriday Phish Phry
By Blake Townsley
Howdy folks. It’s a pretty busy Friday here in Chicago, as you may have heard. Or probably not, since I’m guessing not too many of you are big hockey fans. So for those of you that aren’t, and even those who already know, the Chicago Blackhawks won the Stanley Cup on Wednesday in Philadelphia. Kind of a big deal since, like most Chicago sports teams, the Blackhawks had the longest active streak of Stanley Cup failure. Not as bad as the Cubs mind you, but still several decades long. The victory parade is today down in the Loop, and I’m headed out as soon as I can email this to the PickV powers-that-be. But that’s not the only big thing happening in Chicago today.
Phish is in town, and for the first time in ten years or so, I’m gonna go check out the scene in the parking lot, then hit up the show. But we’re not here to talk about my plans for the weekend, right? So let’s put the Phish phenomenon under the microscope for a bit, and see if we can figure out why a band so under the radar has managed to succeed for as long as it has. Oh man, this is gonna be the easiest thing I’ve ever written. Are you ready for a revelation? Because I’ve got something really good here. I’m not expecting a Grammy for investigative journalism or anything, but I think you’re gonna like where this ends up. Prepare yourselves for wisdom. Phish is the second coming of the Grateful Dead. Boom! Problem solved, microscope turned off and stored, column over. I’m outta here. Wait, what’s that you’re saying from the cheap seats? You don’t log on to read half-baked accusations, obvious hypotheses which are poorly supported? That’s just a lazy conclusion from someone who doesn’t understand what the band is all about?
My first question is, how did you hear about this column, and thanks for joining us today for the first time. I hope you’ll come back. Fine, you’re right. Let’s talk about it. Let’s look at it for a moment, shall we? Straight from the Grateful Dead playbook. -Jam band with no significant radio airplay or monumental album sales? Check. -Devoted following of hippies with spare time on their hands to follow the band’s tours, a rabid obsession with hearing different versions of the same songs over and over, and a predilection for consciousness-altering drugs? Check. -Beloved lead guitarist with not-so-secret heroin addiction which interferes with the band’s ability to do its job? Check. Sounds like the Grateful Dead to me, check ya later, Bill and Ted, I’m going to see a parade. But wait a minute, how could Rolling Stone name Phish the Most Important Band of the 90s? Why are all those fans so devoted that even years later shows sell out, and people anxiously await the tour dates near them? What gives? The first question is this, what is so great about Phish? I guess the first answer that comes to mind for me is musical virtuosity. Every single member of that band is a world-class musician of exacting technicality, with the possible exception of Fishman. You’d have to ask a drummer about that one, though I will be on the lookout tonight. That’s the first big difference between Phish and the Dead. From a composition standpoint all the way through performance, Phish has long harbored ambitions much grander than anything the Dead achieved, or even tried to achieve.
Much of the band’s work borders on the operatic, without the pesky problem of operatic vocals. The Grateful Dead certainly never wrote and performed a series of songs written as a final project for a college degree in music. Phish was the logical next step in the evolution of what the Dead started. The Grateful Dead didn’t have a blueprint to follow, they just happened to create it while they were exploring the confluence between mind-altering substances and jazz, rock, country, bluegrass and whatever the hell they felt like. Phish had the advantage of that blueprint’s existence, but instead of copying it, absorbed it, applied a tremendous amount of intellectualism and talent to the endeavor, and succeeded in bettering the Dead in almost every way, musically. Wow, that even feels sacrilegious to write. I’m not suggesting that the Grateful Dead weren’t tremendously talented, or non-intellectuals, or even that their songs are somehow of lesser quality.
Phish just had the balls and musical ability to take an iconic band’s legend, and make it inimitably their own in a way that won’t be duplicated any time soon. So while I’m never going to fully enjoy tonight’s show as much as I would one by the Allman Brothers or Black Crowes, for a whole list of reasons too lengthy for today’s discussion, I guess I have to admit that Phish impresses me. There, I said it. I guess I’m going to have to spend the rest of the day learning how to tie-dye t-shirts and make grilled cheese sandwiches on the engine block of some trust fund hippie’s hybrid SUV. Wish me luck.
(Credits: Image by greenbk)
What’s My Favorite Word?
By Damon Brown Is there another activity that has more euphemisms than sex? Masturbation alone has more politically correct terms than a presidential campaign. Add in intercourse, oral sex and other activities, and I’m surprised we don’t carry around a dictionary to figure out what our new partners want. There are countless folks that argue this is a problem with our society: The more blunt we are about sex, the more open our dialog. Believe it or not, I think this is bullshit. Language is very powerful, but forcing ourselves to use uncomfortable terms can be more damaging than not discussing things at all. Here’s an example: Author Joan Price recently told me that she’s had to educate the media in how it talks about her specialty: Sex over the age of 60. Journalists would review her book Better Than I Expected: Straight Talk About Sex After Sixty , usually in a positive way, but the reviewers used language much harsher than the terms in the actual book. The older audiences tend to be more conservative, so you might say “pleasure yourself” instead of “masturbate” or “get off”. Any mature adults reading the reviews, however, may think that it is the language Joan herself uses – and end up missing an opportunity to learn more about their sexuality. I used to laugh inside when people would say they spent some “quality time” with their partner or they had to “take care of themselves” because their partners couldn’t quite finish the job. “Why not just say ‘You guys fucked’ or ‘You masturbated’? That’s silly,” I’d think. Now I’ve grown up a little and realized that people’s word choice when describing their sexual activity isn’t about me, but about them. They are expressing themselves as they see fit. So the next time you want to take someone in, hide the pickle or churn the butter, be proud that you found a language for sexual expression that works for you. The goal is to communicate clearly to yourself and your partners, and it’s a million times better than not communicating your needs at all. On that note, what’s your favorite sexual expression? My favorite – this week – is riding the elevator. You can guess what that means. (Credits: Images by chadawg24)
F&$# the “Should”
By Samantha Scholfield
Our very own brilliant Damon Brown wrote a fantastic post last week about not being pressured into thinking your sex life should be something, when if it makes you and your partner happy it’s great as is. I’m going to continue on that same theme and argue that the same theory applies to dating.
There’s so much “should” propaganda out there telling us that our dating lives should be these raging, always exciting, non-stop, somewhat drama-filled roller-coasters of emotion. It comes from ads, movies, celebrities, and closer to home, from our friends, families and occasionally the barista who makes our lattes in the morning. We end up feeling like we “should” be going out more, sending more emails to hot people in our online dating forays, or making more of an effort to get set up by friends. We feel like we “should” be in a relationship when we’re not or either getting out of one or pushing it to the next level if we’re in one. And when we start getting into our late twenties and early thirties, the pressure to not only date someone seriously but get married, find the white picket fence and have babies starts coming from our families, and also from random acquaintances at weddings, coffee shops and well-meaning co-workers. The pressure never lets up.
I say f&$# the pressure.
If your dating life is making you happy, ignore the gentle but relentless pushing to do whatever it is that friends, family and the big ad agencies think you should be doing. If you’re happy on your own right now, own it. If you’re happy with the 15 dates you aim for each week, rock it. If your plan for no kids/no wedding is right for you, ignore the nay-sayers and follow your dreams.
The only reason to change it up is if you’re not happy and/or you’re not meeting your personal dating/relationship goals. If this is the case, all you have to do to find that happiness is to make the changes necessary to meet those goals and get where you want to go. Although that’s kind of a “duh” statement, it can be easy to forget how simple it is to make changes for the better. We forget because sometimes it’s easier to keep doing the same thing because it’s familiar, even if we think we might be happier doing something else. Or we rule out the possibility of owning our lives and making changes because we’re scared of the unknown. The courage to make those changes is what makes us strong and grows us as people. Making changes because it’s what YOU want — and not what someone else told you to do — is extremely powerful.
For example, if you’re in a relationship that’s sucking your soul, get out of it and focus on you for a while. If you’re single and don’t want to be, get yourself involved in classes or with groups of people that enjoy the same things you do (the more co-ed, the better). Then, you’ll be enriching your own life and at the same time, meeting new people you already have something in common with (and if it doesn’t work with them, they all have friends who have friends who are probably awesome).
In short, f&$# the “should” and focus on doing what’s right for you. Your dating life is YOUR dating life — it should reflect what you want.
Yours in damning the man, S
(Credits: Image by kevindooley)
Do Men Only Want Sex?
By Jackie Summers
In today’s discourse, we’re going to address an age old question: do men only want sex? The answer (yes) seems too obvious to warrant an entire essay. So, let’s rephrase: do men only want one thing? No. Usually we want at least two, maybe three things, depending on how freaky you are. And then, we’d like a sandwich, please. All kidding aside, all men go through a period when all they want is sex. For some men, this period is called ‘adulthood.’ I refuse to defend this. Who am I to argue with millions of years of behavioral programming? According to Kinsey, 54% of men think about sex several times a day, and that study was done before the advent of the internet. Personally I find this statement grossly underestimated. In the time it takes for me to formulate this sentence, I myself will have conceived of no less than seven scandalous scenarios, fondly recalling recent raucous romps and fantasizing over future salacious shenanigans; a veritable cavalcade of carnal cravings, a… wait, what was I talking about? Oh yes: sex. Of course we want it all the time, and (news flash) so do women. The idea that men only want sex and women only want love is an antiquated concept I’d love to see go the way of the dodo. We’d like to think we’ve evolved beyond base desires, but let’s not kid ourselves. We’re not humans trying to embrace our animal nature. We are animals, trying to embrace our humannature. And that, with limited success. I have a good (female) friend who’s a biologist, who makes a compelling argument for the evolutionary directive behind our seemingly genetic imperative to love, and be loved in return. Human babies take longer to wean and bring to maturity than any other mammal. It takes us longer to learn how to walk, talk, and fend for ourselves than any creature on earth. Love creates a bond between partners that gives them a reason to remain together, post coitus. A parental or family unit has a much greater chance as seeing it’s progeny survive to adulthood. The problem is, sex is comparatively easy to come by, whereas love, real love, is hard to find, and even harder to sustain. Sex, in it’s many wondrous forms, is singularly the most pleasurable act a man and woman can engage in. Love however, is frequently accompanied by pain. Despite this, most men at some point will realize that, as overpowering as the urge to pass on your genetic material may be, sex, in and of itself, is insufficient. Because ultimately sex is about more than just biology. An endless stream of new sexual partners will (eventually) get boring, and it won’t make you a better lover. It’s far more challenging, and more satisfying, to attempt to seduce one woman, night after night, than a different woman every night. No matter how strong primal urges issuing forth out of our limbic back-brains are, it is our enlarged frontal lobes that put us on top of the evolutionary food chain. Our capacity for reason reminds us there is more to life than satisfying animal instincts, more than preserving your bloodline by trying to inseminate as many females as possible. Life is growth and growth is change and we’re evolving, albeit at a glacier’s pace. We may struggle with our bestial natures, but we are men. And we are trying to embrace our human nature. Unfortunately there is no mystical, sexual bodhi tree you can sit under until you are struck by epiphany; each man has his own unique path to enlightenment. Usually this comes after a man has done ‘enough’ fucking around, and gotten the desire to cross-pollenate like a lawn sprinkler in summertime, out of his system. Just how much fucking this takes varies from man to man, and some men obviously never reach this plateau. For those who have indulged their passions, arrant lust gives way to something that is beyond understanding, beyond reason: the desire to overcome many is replaced, by the desire to be overcome, by one. We just hope she can make a damn good sandwich.
Saturday Night Live Feverish
By Blake Townsley
Howdy folks, and welcome back to Friday. Sure has been a rough couple of weeks for celebrities, huh? In the last two weeks we’ve lost Gary Coleman, Rue McClanahan, Dennis Hopper and Ronnie James Dio. It’s been quite a shakeup in the standings of my annual celebrity death pool. If John Wooden passes this week, we’ll have had two new leaders in two weeks with a little more than a month to go. I’m starting to consider the legal ramifications of driving a truckload of cocaine out to Lohan’s house in LA. But I’m not here to talk to you about the sadness of those recently passed. I want to talk about an entertainer on life support, one potentially in need of a Do Not Resuscitate order, Saturday Night Live.
At first blush, putting Saturday Night Live out of its misery seems like an unthinkable idea. The show has been declared dead and come blazing back more times than Freddy Krueger, Jason Voorhies and Michael Myers put together. It’s survived hundreds of critical suggestions that the show has outlived its usefulness, and casts that made no one laugh. And despite a season that made it harder to defend than at any time in recent memory, the fact remains that the show still has the potential to be a cornerstone of the cultural landscape. You only have to look back as far as the 2008-2009 season to find a time when people were buzzing about the Tina Fey-as-Sarah Palin sketches that opened seemingly every single week’s show.
So what’s wrong with the show? The current cast is as talented as any to have graced the stage in several decades. I can’t think of a current regular on the show that I dislike for any reason, unlike any year that Chris Parnell was dragging down sketches with Horatio Sanz, Will Ferrell, and Amy Poehler. Even the featured players are excellent, with pretty much all of them slated for regular status down the road. My only exception to that? Nasim Pedrad, for reasons we’ll get to in a moment.
Some have argued that the lack of female regular cast members is the leading cause of the season-long epidemic of unfunny episodes. Certainly the Betty White show seemed to lend credence to this theory, as regular female cast members from the show’s recent past showed up to ease the burden of hosting on Ms. White. No less an authority than Seth Meyers tweeted that the show could easily have gone two hours with all the funny sketches they cut, pointing his followers to Hulu, where the dress rehearsal versions of those sketches could be seen. While it’s true that Kristen Wiig is doing the lion’s share of regular sketches for female characters on the show, and I really really miss Amy Poehler’s razor sarcasm on Weekend Update, I don’t know that the lack of female performers is to blame for the weak showing. Abby Elliott and Jenny Slate were both featured pretty regularly this season, and were really funny. Hell, even Bobby Moynihan is hilarious dressed up like an Oompa Loompa version of Snooki on Weekend Update.
I think the problem stems from something a little simpler, and at the same time perhaps more difficult to fix. It seemed to me that the writers on the show were suffering from a massive case of writer’s block. Perhaps a better way to phrase it is “lack of inspiration.” The 2008-2009 shows were great because Sarah Palin provided an easy target for mockery, and the confluence with Tina Fey’s slightly exaggerated, hilarious impression made it easy for the writers to deliver memorably funny lines. The Betty White show gave the writers a chance to revisit famous sketches from seasons past, sketches in which the joke structure was well known and easy to repeat.
But the election ended, and Palin temporarily faded into the background, the show lost much of its topical bite, and all those former female cast members went back to their regular jobs. The writers were once again on their own to come up with the funny. Let’s face it, there hasn’t been much that’s been funny over the past eighteen months. Whether it’s the BP Spill, or the lunatic rise of the Tea Party to national prominence, or the inability of the government to shit or get off the pot with regard to healthcare, the American landscape hasn’t seemed particularly joke-worthy. But Saturday Night live has found the dark humor in situations like that before, and handled them with caustic wit and a weird grace.
It seems like this time the will to fight has gone out of them. Instead of ridiculing our lovely members of Congress for taking twelve months to debate healthcare for their constituents while the economy lagged and people struggled to make ends meet, Saturday Night Live did jokes about teens with weird crushes on their suburban parents, and got January Jones and Megan Fox to try and host their way out of the cardboard boxes they seem to be made from. Rather than focus on finding the hottest hosts possible, maybe you should try actually being funny about current events. It is your bread and butter after all.
So while I’m confident the show can recover, and even faster if it decides to regain its bite on current events, I’d like to offer one other piece of advice to the show. You need to bring back Michaela Watkins immediately, if not sooner. She was unceremoniously dumped from the show when Lorne Michaels decided that she was too old to do well with the show’s younger viewers, aka “not pretty enough” disease. While I’m up for debating the level of Ms. Watkins’ beauty with Lorne any time, the fact of the matter is that she is far more hilarious than her replacement, Nasim Pedrad. I can’t think of one single thing Ms. Pedrad did this season that didn’t make me cringe in embarrassment for her and the show. As one of Michaela’s Weekend Update characters might say, biiiiiiiiitch pleeeeeze. There’s some bad karma going on over at Studio 8H, and it’s due to Lorne’s horrible decision to fire Michaela Watkins. Do the right thing, Lorne.
But if you won’t do that, at least lead off every show with What Up With That? Jason Sudeikis kills me in that sketch every time. Until next week, kids, take care of your favorite celebrities. I think someone’s hunting them, and I’m afraid Keith Richards is next.
(Credits: Image by dno1967)
It’s Not About The Frequency
By Damon Brown We’re often pressured to fuck. I don’t mean in a violent, forced way, but in a subtle, societal way. There are the racy print ads and porn star TV shows and whatever, whatever, but the real pressure comes from others and, more importantly, from ourselves. Like we touched on a few weeks ago with the Vanilla Is Still Sexy post vanilla-is-still-tasty, your sex life should be reflective of you – of your cycles, your ideas and your body. Let’s say you haven’t been laid in a minute, perhaps because you’ve been focusing on other things, perhaps because you just haven’t been horny. The common belief is that there is a) something wrong with you, b) you’re doing something wrong or c) you’re in some form of grieving. The problem with this train of thought is that it assumes that your life isn’t good enough. The assumption is that your life needs to be “fixed”. The question really is, if you are happy with the amount of times you have sex, which may be twice a day or once a year, why do things need to change? Your very best sex life is the one that makes you and, ideally, your partner or partners happy. Masturbating once a day is a sex life. Making love with the hubby once a week is a sex life. Making out without intercourse can be a sex life, too. Define your own sex life. (Credits: Image by eyesogreen)
