Skip to content

Neg: A Love Story

I remember, in my senior year of college, discussing Tess of the D’Urbervilles in what was, I now believe, the finest class of my college years. (“19th Century English Novels!” Partayyyyy!) I, of course, loved Tess, and wanted to converse for hours on end about its many fascinating points – so true! so relevant to Our Society Today! – much to the disgust of all the other (fabulous; never has there been a group of undergraduates so fabulous) students, who thought it was icky girl stuff. 

“When Angel Clare leaves her though, and Tess goes back to her rapist to keep from starving?” I said, at one point. “I mean, I cried. I am not ashamed.” 
“I did not,” said one of the students, a boy with a scholarly-looking beard who wore three-piece vintage suits to class every day, “because I am a man.” 
I laughed. I also immediately formed a crush on the boy with the three-piece suits, or whatever it is when you could have a crush if you did not have better things to do and also some lingering uncertainty as to whether the dude in question dates chicks. Now, of course, I know that he captured my interest through the highly scientific principle of “negging.” 
I have had conversations, dear reader, about my ongoing fascination with the whole Pick-Up Artist movement, and its founding father, Mystery. They mostly go like this: “Stop it! It is ridiculously not worth noticing! You look dumb when you insist on talking about it!” I know this is true, and yet I cannot look away! I mean: what is “peacocking?” Does it explain the top hats?  Is Chuck Bass a devotee of Mystery, and if so, does this explain why, in the most recent episode of Gossip Girl I have seen, he dresses entirely in fetching shades of violet, and occasionally in a cravat? Such are the eternal questions! 
“Negs” are by far the most fascinating of devices. They basically consist of doing or saying mean or dismissive things to a girl, so that she will try to impress you and ultimately sleep with you as a means of proving how cool she is. She will then think she’s won, because if you’re into having sex with her, you must have some kind of interest in her, or at least in her boobs, and if you are a certain kind of sad drunk girl in a certain kind of sad drunk circumstance then you may know the difference between “interested in me” and “interested in my boobs” in theory, but you also are at a point where you just do not care. OR SO I HAVE HEARD!
Paul Rudd’s entire career is built on negging. In his first role of note, Clueless, he insulted Alicia Silverstone until she was so quiveringly hot for him that she forgot he was her stepbrother. In The Object of My Affection, he played a gay man, which is actually a highly recommended neg. (The line endorsed by Mystery is, “if I weren’t gay, you would so be my type,” which I guess works on the theory that you can later surprise her with your boner? I don’t know.) In Baz Luhrmann’s Romeo + Juliet, he was wasted as the dicked-over nice guy Paris, but he recovered his Shakespearian credentials as Duke Orsino in Twelfth Night, who negs so masterfully that Viola actually helps him seduce another lady. This is unintentional – Viola is dressed as a dude – but it still works! To watch Rudd in Wet Hot American Summer is to watch a performance built entirely on Neg, a study in Neg, in fact, which is transcendent in its mastery. To see him tonguily macking on a lady, then (literally!) pushing her away, whirling giddily around a pole while giving the finger to his girlfriend, or dismissing another girl mid-makeout with a bored, “you taste like hamburgers, I don’t like you any more,” is to come to a new understanding of the neg and its powers. It is, to my mind, his finest work. 
Then, of course, there are his contributions to the Apatovian canon, most notably his performance as the neg-addicted spouse of Lesley Mann in Knocked Up. He ignores her, subtly implies that she is beneath his notice with every statement he makes, and ditches her to go watch Spider-Man and play fantasy baseball. I basically broke up with a dude because of Paul Rudd in Knocked Up – well, Paul Rudd and the moment where a heavily pregnant, obviously exhausted Katherine Heigl sits on the kitchen floor, surrounded by bongs and toys, and asks of a random object, “what is this?” “It’s a ninja weapon,” Seth Rogen replies, and I knew in that moment that I was seeing only the best possible version of my future. I could also be the girl on the lawn, tearily pleading, “I like Spider-Man, too.” I started crying on the way home, and although it took a while for that particular relationship to wrap up, Knocked Up represents the moment I realized I was going to leave. 
Which brings us to another point: negging, in the real world, gets old fast. As a form of flirtation, it is tolerable and occasionally intriguing; as a device to keep ’em coming, not so much. Paul Rudd is only charming and funny because, like that other cinematic neg-master Neal Patrick Harris (who is gay IRL, and so gets bonus points) he manages to portray both the elusive too-cool-for-you charm of the neg and its inherent cruelty, and does so with a little twinkle and a slight (or major) over-the-topness that lets you know he knows how ridiculous it is. You get the sense that he is not a jerk but a “jerk,” that he’s satirizing the jerk modus operandi; you get the corresponding sense (well, I do, and I know it to be pretty much baseless) that he is funny as a fictional prick because he’s observed real pricks, and thinks as little of them as you do. 
In conclusion: dudes should not neg. This will eventually result in them being tossed to the curb, like a camper thrown from a speeding van in Paul Rudd’s Wet Hot American Summer. They should, however, pretend to neg, for it is surprisingly darling. Also, that dude from my English Lit class? The possibly gay one with the peacocky three-piece suits and the “because I am a man” one-liners? That dude wanted me bad

So My Mom Was All, "Why Don’t You Come Home Any More?" And I Was All, MOTHERRRR…

… it is because Ohio is so hugely, cartoonishly fucked up

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) – An Ohio state employee whose job is to prevent discrimination repeatedly sent racist and sexist [and homophobic!] e-mails from his government account, an investigation found, but kept his job. 
The same man was reprimanded a year ago for sending an e-mail joking about giving jobs to women with large breasts. 
Jokes about men kissing and a woman’s genitalia, as well as a racial joke and a caricature of President-elect Barack Obama, were in the latest e-mails sent by the Transportation Department worker, according to an agency report obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press.
Robert Habern, 55, is the department’s equal employment opportunity contracts coordinator. 
God bless Robert Habern: providing a punchline for the “our nation can finally fulfill its great promise, but also it turns out people suck” zeitgeist of 2008 so that we don’t have to. 2008: The Year Everything Changed Forever, Except for Everything that Didn’t. 
Now, ladies and gentlemen, for an unparalleled example of the widely renowned – and rightfully feared – Midwestern Nice!
Department officials defended keeping Habern in his position despite the repeated violations, calling October’s unpaid suspension [which was ten days long!] “pretty harsh.” 
“We followed the appropriate disciplinary process,” said spokesman Scott Varner. “He’s been well aware that another infraction could lead to his dismissal.” 
Oh, yeah, you can’t be too harsh on Bob Habern. He’s just kind of a joker, y’know, sometimes he maybe takes it too far, but he means well by it. He’s a nice guy, plays golf with Sherry’s husband. You know Sherry. She just had another kid, can you believe it, real pretty little girl. I think they named her Kayla? Anyway, I don’t see why you can’t make an honest joke about the gays or the blacks, you know, they’re real sensitive, always thinking that somebody’s out to get ’em. Anyway, we’re gonna give Bob another chance, he’ll come through. I know him, he’s a real good guy. 

111,111,117th Meeting of Sisterhood of Sluts, loc. in Foul Caves of Wantonry: Presentation Notes

My fellow sluts: for years, we have feared this day. Since time immemorial, we have practiced our dark arts in secrecy, confident that we could continue to drain the vital fluids of this world’s puny males while keeping our true natures hidden. To all appearances, we are human women, not foul succubi suckled at Lilith’s teat, sent to besmirch men with our whoredom, to crush their proud faith in having slept with more people than their girlfriends and therefore being macho manly masculine men, and, ultimately, to deliver their quivering, emasculated souls to Satan, who will call them pussies and laugh at them in the locker room before snapping their asses with his dampened Hell Towel. (Ah, the Hell Towel. Most feared of all the Dark Lord’s punishments, exceeding even the Wedgie of Fire!) The large, slow-witted, betesticled ones could never guess our master plan.

Or so we thought. For, against all odds, one of them has done just that. He has even exerted his wrinkly organ-sack (the one in his skull!) to write the blog post entitled “It’s Easy To Identify a Slut,” the blog post that, it is whispered, may at last foil our glorious scheme. His name – ah, that accursed name! – is Roissy!

We need not despair, sisters in harlotry! We have thwarted the hairy, lumbering sausage-creatures before, easily lulled as they are by our most diabolical creation, that which they call “anal.” All will be well – so long as we do not reveal the existence of the Doomsday Device.

Awwwwww, CRAP.

ANYWAY, there’s a dude named Roissy on the Internet, and he has apparently paid for a lot of phone sex in his time, because he has composed a blog post written entirely in the idiom of professional dirty talk about why dudes shouldn’t date sluts and which behaviors are signals of slutdom.

You may be tempted to get all, “whoa, why is a dude who is so hugely into porn also so opposed to women who have sex?” Then you will realize that it totally makes sense, because mainstream porn language, if you’ve ever paid attention to it, is always like, “Watch this Stupid Slut Get Slammed/Pounded/Torn Up/Banged/Some Other Word Which Signifies Violence but Is Used in this Context to Connote Fucking, Because Fucking is Totally Awesome for Dudes, but She is Stupid and a Bad Person for Doing It Anyway, Hence Our Sexy Beating-Up Talk.” It’s gross and creepy, and can screw with your head, especially if you are inexperienced or sheltered or a little crazy in the first place. If you want an example… well, have you met Roissy?

Observe, sisters, his knowledge of our demonic ways! 
Acknowledging the Existence… of SEX!
Truly, as Roissy observes, a woman who “broaches the subject of sex first” is no more than a common slattern! Any mention of it, such as “my husband of twenty years and I are having more sex lately,” or, “since I entered a convent and took a vow of celibacy, I no longer have sex,” is an admission of whoredom most depraved.  
Having Preferences… in Regard to SEX!
Ladies so heartless as not to bask in “the glow of bedroom missionary sex,” preferring instead the vile French arts of maybe changing positions every once in a while or giving a beej or something, anything, rather than doing the same thing over and over and then over again: ’tis pity you’re all whores! Because you totally are, because Roissy says so. 
Knowing How… to have SEX!
“Hey man, nothing like getting a BJ from a chick who knows how to hit the underside with her tongue, but it does make you wonder how much dick it required for her to reach that level of professionalism,” quoth Roissy. Yo brah, one learns that particular tactic by skimming any given issue of Cosmo. In his quest to find and despoil all the virgins in the land, it appears that Roissy has been getting himself some half-assed, unenthusiastic blowjobs. I, for one, am shocked!
Masturbating… while thinking of SEX!
Yes, it’s true: women who own vibrators or watch porn are “high testosterone sex fiends!” One can spot such creatures by looking for “forearm hair, narrow hips, broad shoulders, a penchant for cursing, a flat ass (adjusted for race), career ambition, and status whoring.” 
You know, it occurs to me that my thoughts on masturbation are pretty fucking personal, and probably none of your goddamn business. Unless you’d like to schedule some sort of high-profile panel conference on the subject, in which case you can reach me at tigerbeatdown@gmail.com!
Not Wearing Underwear All the Time, Because Underwear Covers the Genitals, and the Genitals Are Used… for SEX!
I told you, they are all in the laundry right now! Oh, AND WHAT.
Being Black. 
No jokes on this one. He just says that all black women are sluts. To be honest, I was kind of used to the vehement, disturbing misogyny at this point, so the vehement disturbing racism came as a surprise. He’s complex, that Roissy. 

But wait! You are saying. (I have a bug installed in your computer. By the way, who pays to download Southland Tales from iTunes? Well, you, apparently.) Aren’t all of these qualifications completely useless, applying as they do to pretty much every female person on the face of the planet at one point or another? I have asked myself the same. Those were the dark ages, before I read the final qualification on his list. For would a non-slut ever go so low as to

Imply or State Outright that Roissy Has a Small Penis, Unsuitable… for SEX?
Oh, no, wait; from the look of things (the “look” of things being that Roissy is either coming out of a bad divorce or has never touched a woman, and allays whatever insecurities he might have by creating a fantasy blog world where he is an undisputed master of poonani and gets to reject women, rather than be rejected by them, which – it is heartbreakingly obvious – is what happens in the real world) they totally would do that. 
“When I feel humongous with a girl, I know she has a normal sized snatch,” Roissy writes. This means, of course, that the women he hasn’t felt “humongous” with must have had huge vaginas, and must therefore be sluts, and must therefore be bad people, and that it must therefore be All Their Fault, and in no way indicative of his (huge, he swears!) dick size. 
Which is what it’s about, really: looking for ways to blame us, the vile floozies of this Sisterhood (all hail the silicone vibrator attachments of Satan!) rather than allowing himself to realize that the problem is him, always has been him, and he is alone in this world, and unloved, and unlovable, and very very lonely. 
Oh, and remember our earlier talk, about encoded violence in porn language? 

“The more I feel like I’m ripping her insides to shreds, the likelier I am to move her to the front of my cherished girlfriend queue,” he continues.

On a completely unrelated note, Roissy has this post about how he tested his Mystery-style seduction tactics on his three-year-old niece!

On a very much related note, EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW.
— AND NOW, THE SECRET PRIZE —
You know, after dealing with something so unpleasant, it’s nice to hear a song with a message. Open your heart and your mind!

OK, I Know I Should Be Making Fun of This…


… but Number Eight is just really fucking hot.

The rest of them are pretty grody (“I love your [fill in body part here]”), except for Number Six, which is totally understandable if the lady just spilled the burrito all over herself, which is of course what I would do.

[30 Hottest Things to Say to a Naked Woman]

&

[Burrito Lovers at Feministe]

The Sad Ballad of Phyllis and Betty

You know, reader, when I want well-informed, thought-provoking, responsible essays on gender as it pertains to literature (or literature as it pertains to gender) there is one publication to which I turn: the New York Times Book Review. KIDDING! Ha ha ha, woo boy, sometimes I crack myself up.

I read Bitch, of course, which published an article roughly nine billion years ago about NYTBR’s tendency to ignore major new feminist works or assign them to obviously hostile reviewers, and its tendency to assign more space to writers who embrace feminist backlash (because that’s “edgy” now; think of it as the old-people version of Vice) than to writers who embrace actual feminism. Bitch will no doubt be pleased to note that its article, despite being nine billion years old, is still totally true! For what did NYTBR publish, in this week’s edition, but an essay on the life and work of Phyllis McGinley?

They published several other things, actually, some of which might have been good. I couldn’t tell! I was unable to read them, because I had been blinded by the terrible, terrible essay on Phyllis McGinley!

Who is Phyllis McGinley? Why is there an essay about her in the New York Times Book Review? Why are she, and the essay, and the essay’s author, all so crazy? I will let the essay’s crazy author, noted television critic Ginia Bellafante, explain it in her own creepily approving words:

[McGinley lived] contentedly for a number of years as a wife, mother and well-known poet in Larchmont, N.Y., writing reverentially of lush lawns and country-club Sundays in The New Yorker, Harper’s and elsewhere… McGinley’s light verse sought to convey the ecstatic peace of suburban ritual, the delight in greeting a husband, in appointing a room, in going to the butcher. Anticipation pervades her work, the feeling of something quietly joyful about to happen — beloved friends coming for dessert, perhaps.

Have you barfed yet? Get it out of the way now, because this essay (“Suburban Rapture!” Is its title!) is dead set on sickening you, being as it is about how mind-blowingly great it was to be a suburban housewife in the 1950s. History students among you may recall the 1950s, along with most of the 20th century, as a time when women had precious few viable options other than becoming housewives, and even the ones that did work (or had to work, due to social marginalization and corresponding poverty – I’m not discounting that) were relegated to menial, low-paying positions with little to no hope of advancement, due to pervasive, unchecked, institutionalized sexism and racism, which were of course inextricably bound to each other and also to class! Ginia Bellafante, apparently not into this whole “history and also actual well-documented fact” thing, seems to recall the 1950s differently: as a blissful Eden, from which women were expelled when they ate from the Tree of Wanting an Actual Freaking Choice. To demonstrate how very lovely it all was (we grow good people in our small towns!) and how the elitist lib’rul media (referred to here as the “contemptuous… literary and intellectual class”) just doesn’t get it, she has chosen to utilize the marginal and deservedly forgotten McGinley.

The facts of McGinley’s career are as such: the lady churned out a lot of crap. It was extremely commercial crap, mind you – so very commercial, in fact, that some of it was used in actual commercials, as in her many catchy jingles. She was your basic ladyhack (not to be confused with your basic Ladyhawke) and, as a ladyhack myself, I cannot judge her for cranking out women’s magazine articles, children’s books, and light verse that was… well, about what you would expect from a writer of commercial jingles. I can, however, judge the Pulitzer committee for awarding her a prize in 1961, a gesture which I can only interpret as proof that the nascent second wave was making a great deal of gentlemen very uncomfortable, and that they felt the need to placate the bevaginad masses by rewarding a token female who knew her place and stuck to it – er, I mean, “exhibited a uniquely feminine sensibility.” For here is a sampling of the timeless, Pulitzer-worthy verse of Phyllis McGinley:

A lady is smarter than a gentleman, maybe,
She can sew a fine seam, she can have a baby,
She can use her intuition instead of her brain

… She can write sexist poems that drive you insane!

Ginia Bellafante insists (and insists, and insists) Phyllis McGinley loved being a suburban housewife, and so did lots of people, so it’s just plain silly that people keep insisting that women who became housewives when it was the only economically rewarding, unstigmatized choice for women did so because it was the only economically rewarding, unstigmatized choice for women. Ginia Bellafante just doesn’t understand why Betty Friedan “dismissed” McGinley as “one of the housewife writers.” I mean, as Ginia Bellafante points out in her own piece, her entire career and aesthetic was about being a housewife, so you can see why that was a completely unmerited attack!

This piece is really miraculous, in that any given line has the capacity to inspire epileptic rage fits, as in, “Having married happily at 33, she loved domesticity the way a woman can only when it has come late to find her,” which manages to imply within a mere 22 words that (a) “domesticity,” meaning marriage and babies, is the only thing that can make a woman complete and happy, (b) women who don’t have it are failures, and women who get it should be simperingly grateful, (c) THIRTY-FUCKING-THREE is late to find it, or, I’m sorry, to be found by it, since we obviously don’t have any choice in the matter and can only hope to be chosen by that one very special boy, who can evaluate and reject women as if we were avocados he were squeezing for ripeness in the fucking supermarket, for he is Man, Master of All Things. Jesus, and they wonder why we drink. However, I would rather skip right over most of the piece, and deliver to you its creamy, poisonous center, which goes like this:

“A liberal arts education is not a tool like a hoe . . . or an electric mixer,” McGinley wrote, dismayed at a world she thought was conspiring to make women feel as though any acquired erudition would be wasted in a life of riffling through recipe cards. “It is a true and precious stone which can glow as wholesomely on a kitchen table as when it is put on exhibition in a jeweler’s window or bartered for bread and butter.” She went on to dismiss the already benighted suggestion that Bryn Mawr was a threat to what ought to get done in a kitchen. “Surely the ability to enjoy Heine’s exquisite melancholy in the original German,” she wrote, “will not cripple a girl’s talent for making chocolate brownies.”

McGinley’s point, an eternally divisive one, was clear: a woman who enjoyed herself as a wife and mother should not submit to imposed ambitions.

Fair enough! If you have absolutely no goals in life other than to get married and have babies, no-one should force you to discover a cure for cancer, or to make any use whatsoever of your education. However, if you do have other goals, a life spent doing nothing but making chocolate brownies would be pretty goddamn tragic. That, one suspects – and hears, from women who survived the era – was the more common scenario. And, hey, good news for ladies whose brains are capable of comprehending something other than the fine points of selecting lawn furniture: it turns out that having ambition does not automatically make you barren or unlovable! You can, in fact, have a career, a marriage, and a baby, or a career and marriage with no baby, or a baby and career with no marriage, or whatever else your heart desires. It’s just strange that the women who tell us otherwise, the women who insist and insist and insist that being a wife and mother to the exclusion of all other things is an honorable and beautiful route that is not in any way limiting or likely to drive you out of your mind – women like Phyllis Schlafly, Phyllis McGinley, Caitlyn Flanagan, and the woman who seems to just love them all, or at least to be unable to frame an incisive and well-merited critique of their message, TV critic Ginia Bellafante – are only able to reach us with this message because they have, well, jobs.

— AND NOW, THE SECRET PRIZE —

I know, right? This post was freaking huge! I’ve decided that whenever I write a bonkers nutso long-winded thing like this, I should reward people who make it all the way through, as with the Cracker Jack prizes which are maybe the only reason on Earth to eat Cracker Jack, which is sticky and gross. Therefore, I present to you: women’s education in the McGinley Age. Strangely, none of them seems to be studying Heine!

A Marshmallow, A Twinkie

Sometimes I have this beautiful dream wherein my father is Steven Colbert and my mother is PJ Harvey and I am their loving child, Veronica Mars. 
Veronica Mars! She is so great! She is played by Kristin Bell, who also happens to be The Voice of Gossip Girl, and while Gossip Girl is fun – kind of like Cruel Intentions, if Cruel Intentions were a TV show, and also if its costume designer had some sort of serious mental illness that made her believe a teen Lothario should dress like The Joker going to a country club – Veronica Mars, Bell’s finest work, is a teen drama about 9,000 times more implausible and entertaining. Should you be suffering from post-holiday malaise, a general lack of faith in humanity, and/or a bank account surplus of about $60, I can think of no better cure for your condition than purchasing its first season on DVD. 
We live in tough times, my friends – and no-one has it tougher than teenage girls. (Note: this is not true. I am making a point.) They cry out for role models – girls, cynical girls, tough girls, girls who are practiced in the art of the snappy comeback – and are answered with nothing more than Katy Perry’s faux-rebellious misogyny and the nude (or nude-like) photos of virginal Disney stars. Girls of America, I am telling you: Veronica Mars is the model of roles you seek. Here is her very first line in her very first scene: 

I know, right? She’s so grumpy! And also, a teen detective! It’s totally unrealistic: in real life, detectives have to be grown-ups, and girls are all big muffin baskets full of sunshine and puppies who see the best in everyone. Oh, no, wait, only one of those things is true! 
So, anyway, at this point you are no doubt asking, “why so glum, Veronica?” The answer is complicated, including as it does (a) her best friend’s murder, (b) her dad losing his job as the result of said murder, and (c) her transformation into a high school pariah, but here is maybe one of the biggest pieces of that answer, which also happens to be the precise point at which I became a fan of the show: 

Okay, here are two things: first, DO NOT LOOK AT THE RELATED LINKS. DO NOT READ THE COMMENTS. Or, if your stomach is strong, do. Because if there is one thing they will teach you, it is that rape is an ongoing and huge presence in our society, an epidemic, in fact, and there are people – lots of people, too many people – who think that is just fine and dandy, and in fact really hot. 
Which leads us straight to the second point: given the cultural climate, it is in fact incredible, and moving, and great, that Veronica Mars dared in its very first episode to introduce us to a strong, smart, identifiable female character whose personality and views on life are based in no small way on the fact that she is a rape survivor, and that they bypassed the “weepy victim” and “hysterical revenge-seeker” stereotypes to make her damaged yet determined, flawed yet admirable, likable yet never too worried about being liked – you know, kind of like a real live girl. I mean, how great is it that they never blame her for having a drink? And how sad is it that not blaming her is so unusual? Yes, the show drops the ball later, in some very major ways, but I will always be grateful for the fact that, rather than spending the entire series curled up in a fetal ball or castrating men with rusty scissors, Veronica moves ahead from being “that girl” to being this one: 

Okay, so that was a little castratey. However, it was also totally fun, and relatable, and also exactly what all of my Friday nights used to look like, which is why I don’t go to that many bars any more. 
Veronica Mars is a teen drama. Its music is terrible, its premises are unrealistic, and its overall aesthetic is at times unbearably cheesy, as evidenced by the fact that I am currently watching an episode in which JTT plays a federal agent. However, as a gay rights activist whose name I cannot track down once asked, “aren’t we entitled to the same mediocrity as everyone else?” The answer, say I, is yes – and the “we” of whom I speak, this time around, is girls. Cynical girls, tough girls, girls who are (or who aspire to be) practiced in the art of the snappy comeback. Girls who have a surprise hidden under that angry young woman shell: 

Twinkies, yum. 

All I Want for Christmas Is a Few New Dads

How much do I love these guys? Answer: very much. They are featured in this month’s New York Magazine, which I purchased in the hopes that it would continue to cover the “women! They get drunk now!” beat. (Women Who Drink are the new Women Who Don’t Always Wear Dresses, yall.) I was disappointed – sorely – but did read an interview with these guys, who, as previously mentioned, I now love. Their story is about the long and often bitter struggle for GLBT rights in America, and is therefore educative and relevant, but perhaps of equal importance is the fact that it contains several jokes:


Dietz: Although we hope whatever we do will benefit the community at large. To know a couple who have been together so long can be inspiring, especially because we look so marvelous. If we looked haggard, it wouldn’t be so inspiring.

Madson: We got married at the Pilgrim-landing site—so much for the Puritans.

Dietz: We were stunned and happy.

Madson: And then it was over. We’re married. It’s two in the afternoon. What now?

Dietz: Now we just wait for death.

Okay, dudes, here is the thing: I have had two stepfathers and a biological father, so I am neither shy nor inexperienced when it comes to investing in the Father Figures market, and having reviewed your thirty-eight-year relationship and total awesomeness re: jokes about it, I can state with some assurance that it is quite desirable. I guess what I am saying is: this Christmas, how do you feel about adopting a twenty-six-year-old child? Keep in mind that I come with my own bourbon!

Good Afternoon! I Am Your Fan.

In response to this comment thread, I have but three questions:

1: WHO ARE YOU PEOPLE.
2: WHY ARE YOU AWESOME.
3: HOW CAN I GET KIDNAPPED.

If I have omitted question marks from this series of questions, it is only to demonstrate that I AM SERIOUS ABOUT THIS YOU GUYS.

Anyway! I think it is nice to point out when people are awesome, because in my experience such people tend to go through life making things more rocking for everyone whilst sometimes secretly thinking, “is this awesome enough? Have I reached my true awesome potential? I doubt it. Perhaps I am not awesome! Not at all!”

You’re wrong, awesome people. You are dead wrong. Here, I shall demonstrate, by posting several things about people of whom I am a fan. A fan… ON THE INTERNET!

Jacob A. Clifton writes about TV on the Internet. That is a very simple description of his career that in no way reflects the actual complexity and strangeness of his work. He might be of the most consistently surprising, audacious pop-culture critics working right now, and his work is worth tracking down even if you have no intention of watching the things he covers, which is a good thing for me in particular since our tastes (Gossip Girl, Battlestar Galactica, yes and yes; Farscape, really?) tend to be either perfectly on-point or wildly divergent: his work has less to do with recommending things than it does with subjecting them to rigorous, demanding analysis, which flies in the face of the received wisdom about what can or cannot be taken seriously, and which enumerates the many facets of a very specifically Cliftonian worldview. He has a different voice for every show he covers, but for accessible Clifton with lots of jokes you will maybe want to read his Gossip Girl stuff, although even that can go into weird (“Sent you a letter unto my home? To my wife, at the DUMBO loft where we make our primary residence? Where my children do even now bend and tremble with the extent of their mother’s whoredom?“) or mind-blowing (“we devalue, as a culture, those artifacts which are gendered specifically feminine“) places. Advanced students should look into his Battlestar Galactica recaps, which are, to be blunt, some of the weirdest things being published today. Weird in a totally rewarding way, mind you! He will, for example, introduce each segment of an admittedly sub-par episode with a quote from a Stephen Crane poem, or conclude a piece with a lengthy meditation concerning redemption, forgiveness, perfection, Jungian psychology and God, which is notable both for being true and beautiful (“I think you have to look in the grossest, sweatiest, scariest angriest places to tease out any piece of God at all… I believe that only in fearless self-examination can we find understanding of others, much less the capability of loving them… Our hate, and what enrages it, tell us where we’re small”) and for being included in a review of a show about killer robots from space. Not bad, considering that all anyone else on that site does is to recount the plots of the TV shows in question while adding a few jokes.

Jacob A. Clifton writes about TV on the Internet, but Mindy Kaling is actually on both the TV and the Internet, seeing as how she plays Kelly Kapoor on The Office and also maintains this totally awesome blog about shopping entitled Things That I’ve Bought That I Love. It was recently redesigned, and I do not like it! I fear change, you guys. However, you have got to respect and love the blog that introduced the Sunday Morning Fantasy to the world, like so:

These underwear play an important role in my Sunday Morning Fantasy #27 (most women I know ages 21-31 have several dozen Sunday Morning Fantasies. I have discovered an extremely vulnerable and weirdly creative side of most women I know, that plan, cast, and set design how our Sunday mornings look in our futures. Like, somehow if a photographer where to surprise me at my house Sunday morning, I am doing something completely cool and photographable).

Sunday Morning Fantasy #27 looks like this: Park Slope, Brooklyn. I am reading the Times Book Review and eating granola and fruit in these underwear and a tank top at my kitchen table with Pharell, my boyfriend.

These have all been really lengthy, so let’s just say: This Recording would not be even half of what it is without the tireless awesomeness of Molly Lambert. She is always original, never obvious, yet never obnoxious or contrarian just for the sake of it, either. That is a hard, hard line to walk, especially if you plan to be funny at all, and yet she does it. Go read what she writes now.

Then, there is Amanda Hess of The Sexist. If you have been reading this blog long enough, you know my deal with Amanda Hess of The Sexist, namely how she is who I want to be when I grow up and all, but I feel I would be remiss if I did not point out the fact that this piece is exquisite. Is it too much to ask that everything ever published (a) adhere to list format and (c) conclude with the phrase “vagina, baby?” I do not think it is! I think we all just have to TRY HARDER.** Let Amanda Hess of The Sexist lead the way!

* I keep getting suckered into these very pretentious conversations of the cocktail-party variety about New Media and Old Media and the relative merits of each, and while generally I take a pro-Internet stance (namely: it is not print, but text itself which is dying, or at least becoming the province of amateurs; however, this will not be achieved until some time after New Media kills Old Media and feasts on its corpse, because New Media has a greater capacity to adapt and incorporate new stuff) I also sympathize with the Old Media viewpoint, which causes me to only ever say the phrase “on the internet” with what I would like to believe is a comically menacing intonation, and (in my own mind) a fanfare of trumpets. However, it’s pretty hard to convey all that in mere print, let alone… ON THE INTERNET!!!!!!!!! I guess I recommend caps lock?

**It could be a term of approval, or a cunning nom de plume (has vaginababy.blogspot.com been registered? If not, be aware that THIS DESCRIPTION FITS BASICALLY EVERYBODY, as in Macbeth) or even a c’est-la-vie-esque expression of life’s eternal mystery, as in “this list of links is pretty disorganized and weird. What criteria did you use to select it?” “I dunno. Vagina, baby.”

Tales of Overcompensation! Or: Ur So Hemingway

So, long ago and far away, in a mystical land known only as This Monday, I wound up having a conversation about Katy Perry’s landmark! first! single! “Ur So Gay” and its success or failure in identifying the telling signs of a certain sort of semi-hip urban male”effeminacy” that mostly consists of not being a fratty dumbfuck with an IQ of 73, a sneering sense of entitlement, and an emotional unavailability that may or may not be due to not having any actual feelings. (“Hungry” and “boner,” for the record, do not count.) Our conversation went like this:

DUDE: “Wish you were in the rain reading Hemingway?”
ME: I know! She doesn’t even know what people read! Like, if you wanted him to be a “sensitive dude” cliche, why not Leonard Cohen? But she was like, “People who read are pussies, so…. Hemingway! That’s, um, an author! An author who rhymes with ‘gay’, no less! God, Katy, you are GOOD.”
DUDE: I mean, Hemingway. Yeah, that’s an author I identify with gay people!
ME: Right? Like, he’s so into this cartoonish overcompensatey traditional masculinity…
DUDE: Like, yeah, hunting and sports and war… not that there’s anything wrong with that! I respect people who are into that! But it’s totally, like…
ME: Uber-straight, uber-male, uber-ultra-traditional-masculine. The last dude you’d name-check in your “I have severely limited expectations so you are a Nancy” hit single.
So, um, in related news? Hemingway’s mom used to dress him like a lady. Just want us all to be clear on that.

Welcome to the 1st Annual Do Not Want Festival! Starring: Bush! Obama! And Caffeine!

So, does everyone remember that time that I needed emergency contraception when I was eighteen, and I asked for it at a local clinic, and the doctor told me that (a) according to her faith, it was a “form of abortion,” (b) that she therefore refused to give it to me, and (c) that I “should have kept my legs together?”

What? No-one remembers that? That is just the horribly scarring incident that turned me into the frothingly sex-positive pro-choice militant that I am today? Well, darn.

The good news is that, even though it would have been possible to fire Dr. McJudgey for this behavior back in the day, starting today it is totally legal and she can do it to whomever she likes with zero repercussions! And by “the good news,” of course, I mean “the news that makes me want to staple my eyelids shut so that I do not have to see one more depressing piece of news today!”

Yes, George Bush has signed into effect “a sweeping new regulation that protects a broad range of health-care workers—from doctors to janitors—who refuse to participate in providing services that they believe violate their personal, moral or religious beliefs.” Meaning, basically, that if it is your doctor’s personal, moral belief that you are a scumbag who doesn’t deserve medical treatment, or that Tuesdays are “me time” days during which patients cannot be treated even if their heads will otherwise explode, you will end up with an exploded head and the hospital can lose its funding if it fires the doctor responsible. Not to worry, though: people’s heads don’t explode all that often, and there’s no real cultural weight on “me-time Tuesdays,” so the only people this will affect are women in need of contraception or abortions! Women like Eighteen-Year-Old-Me (hey there, lady! Your outfit is atrocious) and thousands if not millions of others every year! PHEW.

So, let’s sum up the day in Do Not Want:

(1) Doctors don’t have to be doctors any more.
(2) This dumbfuckery is still going on.
(3) They are taking the caffeine out of Sparks.

Now I can write all day about the first two items on the list. But about that last one, I can only say: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.