The Spitzer sitch: does marriage lead men to cheat?

March 12, 2008

Here we are on day three of hookergate, and the questions are all about why. I posted my own theory below, about it being related to the virgin/whore complex, but some well known people disagree.

No, they think it’s because the lovely Mrs. Spitzer wasn’t doing enough at home.

Dr. Laura was the first to bring up this twisted idea on the Today show, when she suggested that because the Gov wasn’t getting what he needed at home, he needed to get is somewhere else.

His wife just should have started charging him 1,000 dollar an hour and negotiate future price discounts with him. That would have fixed everything!

Read the rest of this entry »


This Virgin/Whore thing… it’s complex

March 11, 2008

Did you hear that NY Gov. Spitzer hired a hooker?

Of course you have. Everyone has. It’s the top story in every paper (my fave headline: “Ho No!”).

The main question I keep hearing people ask is “why?”. I mean, on one hand we all know why, the question behind the question is why a guy like this would need to pay for sex?

He’s married, to a really cute wife. Seriously, don’t judge her by the way she looked at that non-resignation resignation press conference. She’s actually quite cute, and has a great shape.

And even if he was tired of his wife there is no end to the number of aides, interns, and co-workers he could have used for a booty call. As sad as it sounds, an affair with a co-worker probably would have been better for his career than one with a hooker. We can forgive cheating (exhibit A: Bill Clinton) but we can’t get over the hypocrisy of a guy who used to punish hookers now frequenting them.

But he didn’t go that route. He paid an estimated $3,000 for sex, with another $1,500 going towards future visits. And that is what most people don’t understand.

The phrase “you get what you pay for” might be true for shoes, but not for nookie.

So, if there are a number of women he could have sex with, why did he need to pay for it?

I think it all goes back to our old friend the virgin/whore complex.

Read the rest of this entry »


This pretty much sums up my thoughts

March 10, 2008

This post on The Huffington Post pretty much sums up my thoughts on the Clinton/Obama thing perfectly.

Barack Obama in TampaBarack Obama in TampaBarack Obama in Tampa

I saw Senator Obama when he was here last year. I’m a pretty cynical person when it comes to politics, mostly because of my poly sci degree. I’m sure that biologists aren’t struck by the wonders of the human body, because they know how it works. I am never swayed by speeches or ads, because I know what goes into them.

But Barack Obama was different. Because when he talked, I actually cared. He wasn’t promising me 4 years of rainbows and sunshine. Hell, he wasn’t even selling himself. His message was that I could make a difference. That, as a group, we still had the power to change the world. But it would take work. Each and every one of us.

It was honest. It was motivational. And it sold me completely. It made me actually care. My whole life I’ve been told that we do our part for change when we vote, and then we leave it up to the guys in Washington. But Obama wasn’t saying that. He said that he wanted us to stay active after that. To get out in the community and the world and do good things.

That’s one of the big differences between him and Clinton. Barack is a community organizer. He believes that change comes from the people to the government. Hillary is a politician. She is saying that change starts with government and filters down to the people.

Here’s the one thing I learned from that Political Science degree. The President isn’t supposed to have a lot of power.. He doesn’t make laws (that would be the congress). He doesn’t determine what is right and wrong (that is the Supreme Court). He isn’t a King. His mission is to set the agenda. To set the nation on a course, and then allow us to follow through with the project.

History’s greatest Presidents (Lincoln, FDR, Kennedy) were the ones who gave us high goals to reach and then had faith that we could reach them. The perfect example of what a President is supposed to do is Kennedy and the space program. He set a crazy goal and then let us run with it until it was a reality. He didn’t micromanage the whole thing or come up with a specific plan on how to build the rockets. He just inspired us to do it.

Barack Obama is able to do that. To inspire us, to move us, and to lead us. I really hope that he is able to capture the nomination, if only so that more people are able to hear him talk and get inspired to have hope in this country. American’s are great people. We deserve a great leader.


Fun with Mixed Messages

March 9, 2008

Is it any shock that we are so confused? Look at some of the mixed messages that we are told everyday.

Strike while the iron is hot.
Patience is a virtue.

The early bird catches the worm.
Good things come to those who wait.

Don’t be a prude (said to anyone who doesn’t want to talk about sex).
Don’t be a slut (said to anyone who does talk about sex).

Self-acceptance is the path to happiness.
There’s always room for improvement.

Men need to be in touch with their emotions.
Grow a pair of balls (said to any man expressing his emotions).

If you stay home with your children you are wasting your talents.
If you work outside the home you are abandoning your kids.

Love completes you.
Learn to be happy alone.

Post your favorite mixed messages in the comments.


There’s nothing wrong with masturbation

March 9, 2008

I’m was reading one of those stupid women’s magazines at the gym (Self or Cosmo) and they had this section that tracked the sex life of women for a month. It ended up being more boring than sexy, but there was one thing that bothered me… none of the women (married or single reported masturbating for the entire month.

Seriously?

This either means that 1) Women don’t masturbate or 2) They are too embarrassed to admit they do, although they are find talking about the details of their partnered sex romps.

Either one of these possibilities are sad.

If you aren’t regularly getting down with yourself, you really are missing a great way to play with your fantasies as well as learning what gets you off. Not to mention that an orgasm is a great way to improve your mood.

But they sell enough sex toys in the world that I doubt that women really aren’t she bopping. I think it really is just embarrassing to talk about. It goes back to those Freudian myths about sex; tow vaginal orgasms are a sign of better mental health than clitoral. Having sex with someone else is great and wonderful. The message from society is that having it by yourself is sad and lonely.

It just isn’t true. However you reach orgasm is fine, and self-play is a great way to control your sexual desire without possibly harming other people. Masturbation is safe sex, both because you can’t get a disease and because you aren’t using someone else to reach your sexual satisfaction.

That’s sort of the strange thing I found from that article. These women were admitting they were having sex with guys that they didn’t like because they were horny. But they weren’t masturbating? Or they were ashamed to admit it? Please. I’d much rather cop to going solo than admit that I was giving my body over to guys I wasn’t very fond of.

By the way, guys think chicks who masturbate are hella hot. Seriously. Some of the hottest sex I had with the ex were times when we were watching each other going solo. If you aren’t using masturbation and self-play in your sex routine you are missing out on a great way to spice up your sex life without having to dress up in silly costumes or get into a yoga position.


It’s Raining (and sadly, not men)

March 8, 2008

It’s supposed to keep raining like this on Saturday and maybe Sunday. Some of the events this weekend are still going on but some will probably be canceled. Call ahead to see what the deal is.

I’m going to hang out with Ginger Kitty and play Guitar Hero. Maybe I’ll go up to the comic shop and pick up the new Buffy comic where Buffy goes Bi.

I’d call that a spoiler, but once something hits the New York Times it’s fair game.

So, Buffy decides to have a romp with a female slayer (not Faith, but news character Satsu). The world suddenly is up in arms. What does it mean? What is the message? Is it a marketing ploy?

I’ll start with the last question first; Buffy Season 8 has been one of the top selling comic books in the country. No marketing ploy needed.

And I don’t think there’s any deeper meaning here than admiting the fact that some 20-somethings experiment with their sexuality. Experiment doesn’t have to mean playing in the bushes. For some women sexual experimentation might mean having multiple partners, trying S&M, or even giving up sex totally. You have to try a lot of differnt hats until you find the one that is right for you. For Buffy, that means seeing how girls are.

Besides, it isn’t like Buffy’s sex life was vanilla. Yes, her sex with Angel and Riley was all hearts and flowers. But she and Spike had a twisted relationship based on physical and mental torture. They were all about the hurt and comfort. Is that any less kinky than some slayer-on-slayer action?

I hope that Buffy isn’t gay though. Only because I feel like they went down that road with Willow. I was hoping that Willow was going to be bi. Partly because I shipped her and Xander and partly because I wanted to see an actual bi-sexual in pop culture. Maybe we’ll get that story with Buffy.

Still, I’d be happiest if it was Buffy and Faith. Or Cordy and Anya.


Because if you don’t have a child, you don’t matter!

March 7, 2008

From the “No Shit Sherlock” department comes this story from The Boston Globe “Want to Have a Baby? Now’s the Time”.

Ok, I’ll get right on that.

Even better, the story was in the career section. See, us single gals in our 20’s need to devote as much attention to finding a guy and having kids as we do to our career. Because at 35 we all become infertile.

At least that’s that latest scare tactic the media seems to be using.

OK, it is true that fertility drops after 35. But that doesn’t mean that we need to have a child before then. If we based our life decisions on when we were most fertile we’d all have gotten knocked up at 16.

Read the rest of this entry »