Archive for May, 2007

Hey, I trash-pick

“Your trash is someone else’s treasure” seems a little harsh, but the yenta urge is one I always encourage.

Whenever one suggests handing off a guy, the yentee’s first question is of course, “So why didn’t you want him?” But maybe another way to approach it is to look at all the great couples you know. Would you necessarily mesh with your gender-appropriate half of that couple? And if not, does that make him a bad prospect? Thank you, I rest my case.

JRetro is trumpeting this “new development” a little too excitedly: My friends and I have been forwarding each other profiles for years. Even gentiles do this.

data proves astrological compatibility; moms are guilty

here’s another alleged factor in online dating success — the site sounds like a weird mix of softer-than-jello social science and confession booth/bully pulpit.

Along somewhat similar lines is this voyeuristically fascinating site on which to alleviate some guilt (if you’re a mother) or enjoy your freedom (if you’re not). I’ve figured out some of the acronyms — SAHM is Stay at Home Mom — but what is DH? Devoted husband? There’s also DD for _______ daughter.

Update: I’m told “D” is for “Dear.”

the bride wore crotchless panties

this hilarious press release does make you ponder that one, accidental marriage, doesn’t it?

participatory human pairing is SO prepostmodern

that I’m just going to tell the curators of this project that I’d like to be involved with an artist in Prague or maybe Brisbane without even knowing it. I think that would truly transcend any normative definition of “dating” and should win the competition.

and by the “Demi Moore effect,” they don’t mean bland acting in unmemorable movies

so the news flash is women can be ageist too!

As Mark Greif of n+1 pointed out in his brilliant essay “Afternoon of the Sex Children” (sadly not available online), youth is the ideal commodity — everyone knows it and it’s very fleeting. You can sell anything even vaguely connected with preserving youthfulness to people for 40 or 50 years.

This article about MILFs makes a connection with Viagra that’s not the first one I’d have thought of. They say ads for Viagra have bullied men into being aggressors (really?) and so a take-charge older lady is appealing. It’s more likely the incredibly lucrative directive to everyone to be sexy, which for men can mean just taking the pill and getting hard for hopefully less than four hours. But for women it invariably means youthful, alluring looks. Men act and women appear. “Feeling like you get a little break from vanity while you breastfeed and change diapers? Wrong! You should be looking MILFy!” (It isn’t exactly any mothering — interaction with their kids — that puts the M in MILF. It just means older than you).
How come every form of sexual liberation in the past 40 years has women appearing more than acting? The New York mag authors say they prefer MILF to “cougar,” meaning predatory older woman, but I’ll take cougar. At least it’s defining the woman by her appetites, not her fuckability in the eyes of the 18-34 demographic.

Plus cougars are beautiful; they could have been much meaner with the animal.

« Previous Page

Bad Behavior has blocked 70 access attempts in the last 7 days.