Why I won’t date Adi, a girl who travels

Screen Shot 2014-01-29 at 10.00.21 AM

Adi, who probably gets away with a lot of bullshit because she’s kind of hot

The short answer is because I’m married, though I suppose if I wished to date someone on the side a transient would be an ideal candidate. The longer answer is that as evidenced by this post on Medium (which is apparently like the Thought Catalog but possibly worse), people who describe themselves as “travelers” have an insufferably high sense of self-importance. Wanting to see the world is one thing. Considering yourself an entirely superior class of person because you sometimes like to go to places that aren’t the place you’re currently in is another. It’s the same with men who attach far too much self-worth to their beards. Congratulations asshole, your accomplishment was managing to avoid doing for two weeks something that no man enjoys doing anyway.

Let’s look specifically at why Adi doesn’t want you to date her

Don’t date a girl who travels. She is hard to please. The usual dinner-movie date at the mall will suck the life out of her. Her soul craves for new experiences and adventures.

You pig. Why would you take a girl to dinner when BASE jumping is always an option? You are SUCKING THE LIFE OUT OF HER WITH YOUR BANALITY. Also, what adult does dinner at the mall? I’m thinking Adi hasn’t been on a date since high school.

And she will never pay over $100 for Avicii because she knows that one weekend of clubbing is equivalent to one week somewhere far more exciting.

To be fair, I’d endure a transatlantic flight, food poisoning AND pay $100 if it meant not having to listen to Avicii. Maybe I do need to date a girl who travels.

Chances are, she can’t hold a steady job. Or she’s probably daydreaming about quitting. She doesn’t want to keep working her ass off for someone else’s dream. She has her own and is working towards it. She is a freelancer. She makes money from designing, writing, photography or something that requires creativity and imagination. Don’t waste her time complaining about your boring job.

This paragraph is I think what pisses me off the most about this exercise in verbal autofellatio. Look: I’m a freelancer myself. I’m aware of the freedom it brings. But to suggest that preferring to spend your paycheck on travel means you’re more creative than or somehow “above” regular working stiffs is fucking outright insulting. You know what working people do? They take those steady paychecks and save them so that they don’t spend 15 years of their lives living in squalor. You know what they do after that? They do some traveling of their own, only they do it better than you because they aren’t impetuous 20-something shitbags.

She’s not sure when the next paycheck is coming. But she doesn’t work like a robot all day, she goes out and takes what life has to offer and challenges you to do the same.

Ooh, such challenge. Yes, because some people choose to allocate a little more time to sustaining themselves, they’re WASTING THEIR LIVES. Hey, did you realize I can work somewhat normal hours and still get out there a little myself? The naivete of 20-somethings who think that this is their “only chance” to travel kills me.

Oh wait, Adi is the co-owner of a little surf hostel. Looks like she knows exactly from where that next paycheck is coming.

Her days are ruled by the sun and the moon. When the waves are calling, life stops and she will be oblivious to everything else for a moment.

So, she’s an easily distracted animal, like a cat, maybe?

She cooks well and doesn’t need you to pay for her meals. She is too independent and wont care whether you travel with her or not. She will forget to check in with you when she arrives at her destination. She’s busy living in the present. She talks to strangers. She will meet many interesting, like-minded people from around the world who share her passion and dreams. She will be bored with you.

Travel: The secret key to the success of feminism. My takeaway from this isn’t that you shouldn’t date Adi because she likes to travel. You shouldn’t date Adi because she’s a self-absorbed shithead who would seemingly be an intentionally terrible friend or girlfriend. How does “living in the present” mean that she’ll “forget to check in with you?” It doesn’t. It means the act of being somewhere that isn’t here is more important to her than you, because she is the most important thing in her life. Don’t “share her passion” for staving off adulthood, or do you even go so far as to make the pesky suggestion that she could turn her interests into a means of sustenance were she just a little more structured? I can smell your boringness from here.

And if you unintentionally fall in love with one, don’t you dare keep her. Let her go.

She’s all yours, fellas.

_____________________

I’ve run out of essay to pick at, but God dammit is this girl the worst, most oblivious fucking person alive. At the very least, she’s an archetypal example of the worst, most oblivious fucking people alive. What makes it obnoxious is that it’s all a matter of choice. It’s not like she has a job that requires her to be away from home 3/4 of the year. That would be one thing. “Reasons why it’s hard to date a traveling salesperson” would be an interesting read.

But no, she chose her life, and then decided she needed to write a thinly-veiled missive about how her life choice is superior to anyone else’s. Obviously, we all feel that way to some extent, because we need to justify our choices to ourselves. But there’s a difference between quietly reassuring yourself that you’re doing what’s right for you and dismissing 90% of the population as less than you in a public forum.

Even more disconcerting? The comments/annotations on the article. Apparently, lots of like-minded people think Adi has hit the nail on the head:

“I want to be this girl.”

“Fantastic! You managed to capture the essence behind the lifestyle.”

“Preach! This is the story of my life.”

“I am this girl. But I love sharing my life, love being inspired by what many may call the mundane. I love grounding myself in a modern city and hanging out with worker bees.”

Look at that, people. You banality is downright inspiring to your travel-minded overlords! I look forward to the post ten years from now titled “Don’t date a girl who has nothing to show for her time spent traveling in her 20s.”

Also, don’t worry: Someone did you the favor of writing a genderless version of Adi’s post.

Fellas: This young lady would like to talk to you about your chest hair

85e54b8072d4a24e3d9dffb5ecae7077Gentlemen. Dudes. Do you think an awful lot about your chest hair? Do you feel pressured by the media to conform to a certain standard of male beauty, a standard that begins – and ends – with your chest hair? No? Well, Stephanie Karina, author at The Thought Catalog, has your back. You may recognize The Thought Catalog as the premier thought leadership blog for twee 20-somethings, and for good reason. Behold:

The media grossly pressures you into adopting certain standards of beauty that are unattainable, save for a few lucky souls who have won the genetic lottery. They, the chosen ones, are as naturally hairless at 20, 35, or 47 as the day they first emerged from the womb, bald and ready to embrace the world with chubby arms.

Who among us hasn’t lamented the good fortune of our hairless brethren? It’s as though there aren’t enough shirts in the world to contain our shameful chest scourges.

You need to know that you are more than just your chest hair. I’m going to place full blame on the media for causing some of you to think otherwise.

Puhreach, sister.

Actually, their chests may not be as smooth as we are led to believe — thanks to cunning photographers and art directors who are adept at misrepresenting reality.

I would alert the media, if BIG MEDIA wasn’t already behind the conspiracy to make us all into hairless waifs.

Now, you and I both know that these media sweethearts don’t really represent the average American man. Yet, they cause some of you to remain ashamed of what you ought to consider a gift from nature. 

I’m starting to wonder if this is satire. [reads other posts] Nope, pretty sure it’s not.

For example, one close male friend recently waxed his chest. Bulbous, pus-filled boils began to appear up and down his torso and sides a few days later. He discovered that he was allergic to the wax that the aesthetician had used to remove his chest hair.

One time I shaved my chest in advance of a pool party, and I received a keloid scar resulting from an ingrown hair as my prize. I blame the media.

If you want, flaunt your man fur! It is prime for cold winter months — during which it could serve as an additional layer underneath your clothing. It could buffer you against bitter winds or sloshy snowfalls — which will prove useful as global warming progresses in its current direction. That is, if global warming isn’t a lie made up by Al Gore and hippie liberals in an attempt to plot world domination! 

See, I still don’t know if this is satire, meant to somehow draw a parallel between a non-existent issue and the real body images issues that women are often face. The thing is, that only works if the issue (or proposed solution, or whatever) in the satire isn’t real, or is totally unreasonable. No, manscaping isn’t a “problem,” but it’s a thing people do and I’m sure a certain type of guy might feel some amount of “pressure” to look tan and smooth like a Men’s Health cover model. Instead, she’s (ostensibly) drawing parallels between a minor, fringe issue and a real one. That doesn’t work, and is yet another example of why the The Thought Catalog is an absurd, unmitigated shithole for hack writers who put exactly zero thought into the shit they spew out onto the only site with little enough self awareness to actually publish these articles. The sad thing? This is probably one of the more readable pieces they’ve published in a while.

Do you. Do no one else. 

Thanks, Stephanie. You do the same.

Chris Kluwe might be right, but he’s still a douche

img22210007

If you haven’t been following the saga around former Minnesota Vikings punter Chris Kluwe, here’s a quick synopsis: In 2012, Kluwe was approached to speak on behalf of some gay rights activists groups, which he accepted because it’s an issue about which he feels strongly. Deadspin published a letter he wrote to a Maryland delegate chastising him for trying to suppress Baltimore Ravens linebacker Brendon Ayanbadejo’s support for gay athletes. Minnesota management didn’t like that, and tried to keep him quiet while he continued his activism, including tweets about the Pope, etc.

It was all pretty unoffensive stuff, but Kluwe was released in May of 2013. According to another letter he posted on Deadspin, Kluwe can’t be 100% certain it was because of his public activism, but he’s pretty sure it was:

However, it’s clear to me that no matter how much I want to prove I can play, I will no longer punt in the NFL, especially now that I’ve written this account. Whether it’s my age, my minimum veteran salary, my habit of speaking my mind, or (most likely) a combination of all three, my time as a football player is done. Punters are always replaceable, at least in the minds of those in charge, and I realize that in advocating noisily for social change I only made it easier for them to justify not having me around. So it goes.

Here’s my thing: I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s right, and it’s all pretty fucked up if he is. On a certain level, everyone is entitled to their beliefs, and they ought to have the opportunity to voice them. On the other hand, I’m annoyed that Chris Kluwe, who himself presents several good reasons why he’s not worth hiring, takes to a wildly popular sports blog to complain about getting axed because he does so under the blanket of championing civil rights.

What Kluwe doesn’t understand is that it’s impossible to entirely divorce himself from his profession in the eyes of the public. His whole stance was “these statements were my own, not the team’s, so they shouldn’t have cared.” It doesn’t work that way. Ask anyone who’s been fired for tweeting things with which their employer didn’t want to be associated – sticking “all opinions are my own” in your twitter bio doesn’t cut it. In Kluwe’s case, it’s even more pronounced because being employed by an NFL team is the only reason his words carry weight and influence. Him saying that he supports gay rights as an individual will always be reported as “Minnesota Vikings punter Chris Kluwe says he supports gay rights.” In fact, it wouldn’t be reported otherwise.

To me, It’s not an issue of whether or not the Vikings agree with him; it’s an issue of him pulling a football team into a discussion they don’t have to be a part of by virtue of opening his mouth. Yes, you can argue (and I would agree) that a football team, with their unique ability to reach millions of impressionable fans every Sunday, could use that influence to support Kluwe’s message. Hell, given that it’s a pretty basic issue of human rights, maybe they even should do that. Could, and should, but don’t have to.

I realize that a failure to act is almost as bad as acting negatively, but if we don’t want to treat corporations like people, we shouldn’t hold them to the same standards of activism as people, either. I don’t want politics mixed with my sports, and while I agree with Kluwe and commend his courage to speak out, having a more progressive world view than some people in the NFL isn’t exactly a major accomplishment. The Vikings didn’t want to get involved on a national scale, but he gave them no choice. If that’s really why they let him go, again, that’s fucked up, but I don’t entirely blame them.

No one follows you on Yelp

Screen Shot 2013-12-20 at 11.33.23 AM

Yes, I’m aware that people can follow other people on Yelp!, but that doesn’t mean they should. In theory, Yelp! is a great idea: Hold businesses accountable by giving the power to the people and letting them review and rate their performance. No more haughty dipshits being paid off to write glowing restaurant reviews. No guessing as to whether or not a place is worth your time.

In practice, it’s a terrible idea, because everyone on the internet is a haughty dipshit.

For one thing, no one goes on Yelp! to say that a place was just ok. They either gush or they bitch, but that’s inherent in any crowdsourced assessment scenario. What’s much, much worse about Yelp! are people like the guy you see above, who turn Yelp! into their own personal blogging platform, as though anyone gives a shit what individuals have to say. Individuality is exactly the reason for Yelp!’s existence in the first place. An individual review is useless; it only has value when you aggregate opinions. That’s why when douche canoes post entirely-too-long missives about a goddamn chicken Philly cheese steak, it makes me want to throw my computer into a lake.

It’s a really dirty trick too, because turning Yelp! into a blog means you’re guaranteed to get pageviews. No one can critique you or your writing; the worst they can do is send you a message. You can say a review was “helpful,” but there’s no option to say that it was “the worst fucking thing I’ve ever seen.” That would be a really big button. It’s the same smarmy, anti-negativity bullshit that powers sites like BuzzFeed. Hell, you can even say a review was “funny,” which is not something a Yelp! review should ever aspire to be. No one should have to read an amateur dumbass attempt to make pizza “funny.” Even if people do “follow” you on Yelp!, get over yourself. No one’s waking up in the morning to check to see your latest review, as though your opinions drive the tastes of other people. They don’t.

322 goddamned reviews. That’s nearly one for every day. What does this guy even do all day, besides provide content to a popular website, for free?

If you want an online platform for expressing yourself that no one will read or care about, start an actual blog. It’s working out swell for me.

Wells Fargo wants to know why I won’t use their bill pay service

Screen Shot 2013-12-16 at 4.49.59 PMHere’s how I read that email:

“We see that you’re not using Bill Pay, a feature that millions of our customers use but you do not. We’d like to know just who the fuck you think you are, what makes you so special, and what gives you the right to not use Bill Pay. Please select one of the following as your primary reason for not using this great, free service that makes it nigh-impossible to leave our bank, and then we’ll respond with an email detailing why your selection makes you a sissy fag and isn’t really a reason at all, because Bill Pay.

Kindest Bill Pay Regards Bill Pay Bill Pay,

Bill Pay”

For those who don’t know, online bill pay is what banks refer to as a “sticky product,” along with things like online banking, your debit card, direct deposit, etc. They’re features that seem like they’re all upside for the consumer, except for the fact that they call them “sticky” because they make it really, really hard to leave their bank. Imagine if you had all of your bills running through their system, and then wanted to leave. It’s basically impossible to do without missing a payment, or overdrawing the account when you switch your money over but forget to turn off the automatic bill pay. Then it takes even longer to close an account, which is what they want.

It’s fine to use if you really value the convenience of having it all in one place, but just about every creditor and utility now has their own online payment options, or can set up the automatic debits on their end. I suggest you take advantage of that. Not only is it just as easy, you get fun emails like these from time to time.

Enough with the Restaurant Renovation Shows, Already

Slide1

Ramsay’s Kitchen Nightmares. Restaurant Stakeout. Bar Rescue. Restaurant: Impossible. Odds are you’ve seen at least one of those shows. I’ve watched them all, and I still do, to an extent. It’s good television. If somehow you’ve managed to never see one of these shows, the premise is that a business owner (either bar or restaurant, depending on the show) is on the verge of losing everything, and is reduced to calling in an expert for help. The “expert” comes in, yells at everyone, makes an absurd amount of changes in a needlessly short amount of time and finally everything works out in the end. The business reports higher sales and staves off bankruptcy. Like I said, it can be compelling television, because everyone loves a predictable story arc. Last night I watched a new show on the Food Network called On the Rocks (get it!?), featuring yet another British “expert” telling business owners how stupid they are. I think, with this final straw laid upon the camel’s back, we should all agree to let the genre die.

At least in my young mind, this entire genre was made possible by Simon Cowell during his American Idol stint. That is, I can’t recall a time before that when someone actually criticized people on national television before an audience of millions. Whether or not Cowell actually pioneered it, he definitely created the template: Have an accent, be an expert, and deliver (sometimes unnecessarily) brutal criticism under the guise of “wanting to help.” That character was confined to competition-type shows for a while, but it didn’t take long to figure out that people love watching other, normal people get belittled on television. Now, we have angry men yelling at restaurant owners. We have reached our saturation point.

My problem isn’t really that I doubt the expertise of the stars of these shows. Everyone knows that Gordon Ramsay is both a talented chef and successful restauranteur. I don’t doubt that John Taffer hasn’t owned and operated a bunch of profitable bars. I don’t know much about Robert Irvine, but he’s the most irritating of the bunch. Instead, my problem is that making good television and actually helping a business are two diametrically opposed goals, no matt how hard you try to mesh them. I used to work as a consultant, and I can assure you that at no point were we allowed to call our clients or their staff “fucking idiots,” even if the work was pro bono, as it is in the case of these shows. Producers have to create story arcs complete with underdogs, heroes, and antagonists, none of which are necessary (or, you know, beneficial) for improving a business’ bottom line.

To see what I mean, watch an episode of the BBC version of Ramsay’s Kitchen Nightmares. He goes in, spends most of his time in the kitchen (he’s a chef by trade after all), helps the owner on the business end, and uses his fame to help with the marketing. There are no heroes or villains, just a kind of boring “behind the scenes” type look at how a restaurant ticks. Note that he does all of this relatively quietly. The US version, on the other hand, is a circus. He yells and curses at the top of his lungs. There’s dramatic music. Instead of just going in and offering simple advice, he completely tears down the restaurant, its menu, and the employees. Bar Rescue does it. Restaurant: Impossible does it. Everything is re-built in a manner of days, as though three days and a facelift is enough to change the fundamental issues that plagued management in the first place (it’s not, if you search around online you’ll see that nearly every place that’s been “saved” has ended up closing anyway). The result is a program that’s, while certainly entertaining, exhausting. Exhausting to watch. Exhausting to invest in, especially in 2013 when you can pull up a bar on Yelp!, see that it already closed, and know that the episode you’re watching was for naught.

Once the “reality” aspect of the show is dead, is there really any point to them anymore? They’re all the same, and as producers fine-tune what does and does not get ratings, they’ll only become more scripted and less realistic. More than anything, they’ve become avenues for the “experts” to promote their personal brands. I love Bar Rescue, but I’m tired of hearing John Taffer have the audacity to blame a bar’s failure on menu design, the secrets to which, of course, only he knows. Restaurant: Impossible has nice pacing, but enough with Robert Irvine using it as a platform for his “my cooking is better than your cooking; follow my instructions to the letter or you’ll fail” bullshit. These shows had their moment in the spotlight, but it’s time to let them die a dignified death (if Car Lot Rescue didn’t already ruin the chances of that).

If You Want to Get Stronger, Lift Heavier Weights

weight_lifter

I get tired of seeing people in the gym toiling away for countless reps with meaningless weights. Well, not tired, I guess. It doesn’t affect me in any meaningful way. They’re the ones who get tired. But still, it amuses (or more accurately, bemuses) me. People go to the gym to improve their physical fitness, and lift weights specifically to get stronger. Why, then, do people waste so much time doing 1,000 reps with 1 lb. weights when they’d be better served doing 1 rep with 1,000 lb. weights? The answer is because people, and their prevailing wisdom, are retarded.

Somehow, at some point, we got into our heads the idea that lifting big weights will make you big, and lifting small, sleek weights will make you small and sleek. Women are especially guilty of this. It’s probably due to the fact that yes, the largest weights in the gym are typically lifted by the largest people. In fact, the opposite is mostly true. Lifting a lighter weight to exhaustion will tell the body to increase the number of muscle fibers, thereby making you bigger. This has its benefits, namely increased size (if you’re looking for that) and muscle endurance. For some people, that’s really important. Anyone who works a job that requires them to lift moderate loads over extended periods of time, mostly. But for the rest of us, the casual weight lifters just looking to get stronger? Lift heavier.

Weightlifting, like any other physical exercise, is something we get better at with practice. If you practice lifting light things over and over, you’ll get better at that. Conversely, if you practice lifting heavy things fewer times, you’ll get better at lifting heavy things. Consider the functional applications of that kind of strength. Do you anticipate a time where someone will approach you and say “Excuse me, would you mind helping me lift this moderately heavy thing up and down several times?” Doubtful. Instead, you’re more likely to have someone say “Please sir, will you help me lift this extremely heavy thing beneath which I am trapped, so that I may live?” Suddenly, those bicep curls don’t seem like such a good idea. Big biceps are nice, but having a strong back, legs, and shoulder cradle is a lot nicer.

If you’re still of the “lift big to get big” mindset, maybe rethink your strategy. Why do 20 lat pulldowns when you could be eeking out 10 pull-ups? Why do a bunch of pointless leg extensions when you could power through a set of 5 heavy squats? I’m not saying there’s a problem with lifting for size, or that you can realistically have one without the other (you can’t), but remember: Lift heavier, and get stronger.