What cruel fate the world has ministered to me. Not only am I to be away from my family, as well as my wife on this our anniversary, but the gods seem impelled to debase me. Was my 328 PT score hubris? Maybe. For not only have the gods tried to blot out my vision by giving me the pink eye, but now they made one of their winged messengers, the crow, egest upon me. Oh, inverted world. From such great heights have I fallen. I have suffered the shame of shames. To be shat upon by a bird.
My age belies my position as the head of the avant garde in gender research. Yet in no way do I feel the answers I’ve produced from my research to be definitive. I do feel, however, they are cutting edge and will be the basis of all responsible, future scientists’ knowledge as they look for the answers to why males and females are so awkwardly different. My work has been concluded, by many, to be of more depth and contain more truth than any previous. Having said all this I now humbly present to you some of my findings.
I would be remiss if I did not begin at the beginning. The undeniable first difference of the genders, the one we notice before all others, and it is...but of course, the very names themselves: male and female. Let us look at the word ‘female’. No clues to the nature of woman kind here, right? All we have is ‘male’ with ‘fe’ added to it, right? Wrong. Let us exchange ‘man’ for ‘male’, then what do we have? ‘fe-man’ (adding also a hyphen). Still nothing? Yes, utterly useless, unless you think like a scientist or more appropriately in this case a chemist. If you did this you would know that ‘fe-man’ chemically speaking is ‘iron-man’(‘fe’, of course being the chemical symbol for iron). That’s right women are men of iron, which makes the fact than man is considered the stronger sex quite ‘iron’ic (also for your edification Ironman was not a DC comic book, but like women is a Marvel).
There would be no man without woman, and despite all the advances in medical science there can be no woman without man (there not being a robot adept enough yet to kill icky-icky spiders). Why is it then that each sex has an innate distrust of those of the opposite? We could not be here without them. The most important word to dissect in that question is opposite. Opposite is not used by chance and is not isolated to physical differences. The human race is blessed with infinite complements when it comes to gender. Where there is weakness in one the other possesses much strength. Truly the lord both giveth and taketh away. In light of this our skepticism of the antagonist gender is not so ridiculous; in fact it is probably quite healthy. Examples of our suspicious nature are evident in all inter-gender relationships, but none as prevalent or interesting as our mating practices.
As I’ve stated above without both sexes there could be none. To further homo sapiens existence the two genders must participate in a unifying act. As it is both unite to form one. Yet, our disdain for what we don’t know is ever present in our unification rituals. Let us first start with man, as God is said to have, and the male’s part in the coupling process.
Man is born of woman and is nurtured upon her teat. Man is ever grateful of his mother for his presence on earth. So strong are his feelings of indebtedness, in fact, that he will place all members of the fairer sex upon a pedestal. Although placing a woman on a pedestal has the benefit of making it easier to view what’s under her skirt it places man at a great tactical disadvantage. A man must convince a woman to come down, a feat only accomplishable by a small percentage of men (mostly actors and Chip & Dale dancers, and if it gets hot enough the occasional fireman), or he is expected to present himself as on par with her level. Women are very much aware of this pedestalism, and most take full advantage of thus a man’s need to inflate himself in order to be accepted as a partner. Although both sexes are aware of this exaggeration it is found to be most desirable if the male uses inconspicuous deception.
There are many styles of deception that have arisen over the span of human existence that men use to bolster themselves. None may be as effective as communication. If a man can strike up a conversation with a woman and extract from her likes, dislikes, experiences, feelings and thoughts then project an image of himself in accordance with these he is less likely to have tennis elbow the next day. This man, popularly called a sensitive male, has the faculty to skew the truth of himself to fit her idea of a dream man. What happens when a man can no longer keep up the charade? I will address this question later on. First allow me to point out the main dilemma a man faces when on the prowl for intercourse.
A man’s agenda maybe for the realization of sexual pleasure a woman though is not a mere sexual object and is not to be treated as such. However, if in doing so a man does not reveal to her that he has taken into account her sexual promise he has assured himself a cold bed. A woman’s body is to be both obsessed over and to be oblivious of. These are the horns of man’s dilemma. When in doubt it is best to favor the latter lest her hand meet your face with great force. If by the odd chance you do find a woman who prefers to be lusted over it is best to keep this information to yourself. She will be swarmed by men if you do not heed this advice. For men are better suited for lusting than listening.
Women’s love of dancing in public is tantamount to little boys’ love of igniting ants with a magnifying glass: it is the love of the rush received from tormenting lesser beings. Women are aware that many of the moves on the dance floor would like to be seen done horizontally or still vertically, yet without the restrictive garments. Men, however, participate in another dance; it is the dance of the charade. I posed this question earlier: what happens when a man can no longer keep up the charade? This if you did not know is a trick question. He can not live a lie forever. Thus what a man does is to form bonds with a woman and slowly deflating himself until he has returned to his rightful level with woman now in tow. The bonds of love are useful indeed.
Although it is embedded in all our genes women may have a stronger desire to produce progeny. I’d be remiss if I didn’t at least acknowledge exceptions to this. Those who are inclined to procreate find it easiest and almost necessary to follow social standards. Women bear offspring as well as society’s expectations to take the brunt of the raising duties. This stigma is visible in a woman’s stance in the mating process, unless it’s doggy style.
Most importantly offspring must be provided with a wealth of shelter, food, love and other essentials of life. Enabling to ensure the strength and lastingness of this is the pre-insemination courting period. It is as simple as looking at an individuals W-2s to deduce their ability to provide funding for material essentials, but it is a far more arduous task to find that individual’s capacity to love. Dating before sex has arisen because of the need for an empirical process to procure a male’s facility for compassion. It’s development came about in the need of not creating life with losers for fathers and it is still the most commonly used practice and has even flourished despite the advent and proliferation of prophylactics and other modern birth control resources.
Dating’s main flaw is that it has been infused with two formidable errors in reasoning. These errors have been brought into being almost entirely by the influence of the church and by protest of the church’s influence. Many individuals view sex with the prejudice of one of two extremes; that there is not nor need be a presence of love or fondness for your sexual partner, and the counterpart being that sex is the physical representation of love and thus should only take place when the two participants are head over heels for each other (and in fact not done with one’s heels over their head). This in today’s world is the horns of the dilemma that all women must face with each sexual opportunity. To be a woman is to have to wade through the social subterfuge and make a decision given the opportunity’s context and the parameters of her morality.
Given the constraints on my research funding I will now have to skip further ahead in my dissertation.
What possesses a man once exiting the boudoir to recount the sexual events that took place? It is quite simple. There is a link between men, a brotherhood of males. The reason he tells of his escapades even the reason he exaggerates is to give others hope. Failure stacked upon failure can lead anyone to be downtrodden, hopeless and to hear that someone made it is like seeing a ray of light when trapped on the dark side of the moon.
Remember to always listen, lie, and love and you‘ll be okay. Keep the faith my brothers.
.jpg)
Fortunately, the lampshade on Marx's head is not necessarily due to any bright ideas. In fact, it is due more to affectedness than effectiveness. But as far as the Russian people go, they love their computers and especially enjoy using them to Photoshop movie posters as well as to de-hirsute histories most famous. And while some of their technology we might find ill-log-ical, they've definitely found a very ingenious way of scaring people into buying cell phones. Hey Russia, sometimes not upgrading your phone can be pretty cool. But one thing's for certain, being Russian isn't anything to be afraid of. In fact, many people are waking up and finding out they're more Russian than they think. But maybe that's due to all of us here on this Google Earth being pretty much the same. Which I for one, am very glad of and I'm also very happy to invite Russia back into pop cultural significance. And I hope that this might just mean more Yakov material for all of us.
The NBA Finals are just about to start and I was thinking how it's funny that the last time Orlando was there they also had a big guy who closely associated himself with Superman. I wonder if this is a prerequisite for Orlando centers. Is it in the job description? Speaking of description, basketball players, and superheroes. Remember former UCLA baller Earl Watson...the perfect description of him would be batman. Not that he would be perfect for the part of Batman, but he's kind of like a bat-man. And speaking of people you might not think are perfect for the part, but Robert Downey, Jr. as Sherlock Holmes...that seems kind of weird to me. Wait, Downey usually plays characters that are pompous and rich. Ding! That's Sherlock Holmes. Don't get me wrong, I'm falling back in love with Downey and he's so hot right now, but I saw this article on the new Holmes movie titled, "This isn't your father's 'Sherlock Holmes'". Okay, fine. That's good news for the producers since I don't think any Holmes movie has ever been financially successful here in the United States. But seriously, "not your father's Sherlock Holmes"...I don't even think my father's father had a Sherlock Holmes. I mean we're talking Victorian Era since Sherlock Holmes was a true pop culture diva. Sure we've all heard of him, but I've also heard of William Hung, but that doesn't guarantee a movie's success. I just don't believe this Holmes movie is going to be a blockbuster. In fact, I'm calling it right now that this movie is going to be kind of a bust. Box office-wise at least. Plus it's going to suffer from the Jude Law which is to say any movie with Jude Law in it promises to sizzle, but ends up only to fizzle. Oh, and what is my prediction for the NBA Finals: Lakers in 6, but maybe 5. 
