Friday, June 19, 2009
Contest!
check out this great purse and follow the rules for a giveaway: http://littledesignerbook.com/?p=1126
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Genetic & Fashion Creativity
I texted my boyfriend today with a strange complaint:
OMG. AT LUNCH. 4 GIRLS @ A TABLE. THEY EPITOMIZE MY COMPLAINT ABOUT GIRLS LOOKING THE SAME. 2 BLONDE 2 BRUNETTE. ALL W/ SIMILAR BODY TYPE, HIGHLIGHTS, OUTFITS, AND FACIAL FEATURES. GENETICALLY UNINTERESTING. LIKE AVG PORN STARS. NO WONDER FETISH MATERIAL MORE INTERESTING …
Truly, these four co-eds were uninspiring. Is it just me, or are parts of the world beginning to look alike? I feel like a racist who says all [insert group] look the same to me. But, honestly, these four females could’ve easily been one another’s clone. No, they weren’t sisters. I checked.
I realize as I write this that it's not a damn thing to do with genetics but with makeup, clothing, and attitude. So many females I run across could easily swap out of each other’s lives, at least superficially. I know it’s because of the Catch-22, a great book, that consists of what marketing (or casting or agencies or whomever) finds attractive is what sells and because it sells, [soulless enterprise here] looks for that type of female. As I said to have realized, this is not a case of genetics but a case of demand by the public via marketing via public saying that this is what they want to look at. BORING!
Going back to the girls from lunch. Because the public/marketing has said that THIS is what a beautiful woman looks like, THIS is what a man wants, these girls, and others like them, strive to match that image as much as they can. What is strange though, unless they’ve got Tammy Faye spackle & uber-duty duct tape hiding their uniqueness, is that genetics seems to be moving into the direction of marketing.
Is it possible that [insert deity from whence you believe humans came] is filling market demands?
I’m beginning to think Lamarck was right. It seems like genetics is taking a turn in that these girls are beginning to physically resemble one another without any familial connection, and that these girls are resembling what your typical porn actress/model looks like BECAUSE they try so hard to replicate what the average porn star looks like.
Google some basic porn sites and the women look the same.
Boyfriend’s text reply to my message:
THAT DOES SOUND PRETTY UNINSPIRING. UNIQUENESS IS A RARE VIRTUE SOMETIMES.
Strangely enough, as I write this, I honestly think the typical porn star, along with those four girls, are average on the attraction scale, which is completely subjective. These girls have not a damn thing unique about them to lodge themselves as individuals in my memory.
It's entirely possible that I’ve matured and found beauty in more than the superficial over the years. It’s the superficiality in their attempt to copy a look that’s been beaten into them (and much of society) as what’s culturally beautiful that I find unattractive and bothersome.
For beauty that is unique and unforgettable, I suggest these individuals. They’re not a group of interchangeable parts or features. Some of ‘em even have braaaaaains … mmmm
Mollena
Audacia Ray
Dita Von Teese
Anjelica Huston
Furry Girl
Even the women in the Dove Natural Beauty campaign
… Furthermore, age can be beautiful too.
Beauty has a lot to do with attitude. And brains.
The brain is our largest sex organ--I blogged about that some time ago--and if you don't have brains, then you're not getting my attention, at least not for long. But you also have to stand out from the crowd!
Talking about standing out, check the Adipositivity site. Props to the photographer and models who are positive about who they are and how they look.
OMG. AT LUNCH. 4 GIRLS @ A TABLE. THEY EPITOMIZE MY COMPLAINT ABOUT GIRLS LOOKING THE SAME. 2 BLONDE 2 BRUNETTE. ALL W/ SIMILAR BODY TYPE, HIGHLIGHTS, OUTFITS, AND FACIAL FEATURES. GENETICALLY UNINTERESTING. LIKE AVG PORN STARS. NO WONDER FETISH MATERIAL MORE INTERESTING …
Truly, these four co-eds were uninspiring. Is it just me, or are parts of the world beginning to look alike? I feel like a racist who says all [insert group] look the same to me. But, honestly, these four females could’ve easily been one another’s clone. No, they weren’t sisters. I checked.
I realize as I write this that it's not a damn thing to do with genetics but with makeup, clothing, and attitude. So many females I run across could easily swap out of each other’s lives, at least superficially. I know it’s because of the Catch-22, a great book, that consists of what marketing (or casting or agencies or whomever) finds attractive is what sells and because it sells, [soulless enterprise here] looks for that type of female. As I said to have realized, this is not a case of genetics but a case of demand by the public via marketing via public saying that this is what they want to look at. BORING!
Going back to the girls from lunch. Because the public/marketing has said that THIS is what a beautiful woman looks like, THIS is what a man wants, these girls, and others like them, strive to match that image as much as they can. What is strange though, unless they’ve got Tammy Faye spackle & uber-duty duct tape hiding their uniqueness, is that genetics seems to be moving into the direction of marketing.
Is it possible that [insert deity from whence you believe humans came] is filling market demands?
I’m beginning to think Lamarck was right. It seems like genetics is taking a turn in that these girls are beginning to physically resemble one another without any familial connection, and that these girls are resembling what your typical porn actress/model looks like BECAUSE they try so hard to replicate what the average porn star looks like.
Google some basic porn sites and the women look the same.
Boyfriend’s text reply to my message:
THAT DOES SOUND PRETTY UNINSPIRING. UNIQUENESS IS A RARE VIRTUE SOMETIMES.
Strangely enough, as I write this, I honestly think the typical porn star, along with those four girls, are average on the attraction scale, which is completely subjective. These girls have not a damn thing unique about them to lodge themselves as individuals in my memory.
It's entirely possible that I’ve matured and found beauty in more than the superficial over the years. It’s the superficiality in their attempt to copy a look that’s been beaten into them (and much of society) as what’s culturally beautiful that I find unattractive and bothersome.
For beauty that is unique and unforgettable, I suggest these individuals. They’re not a group of interchangeable parts or features. Some of ‘em even have braaaaaains … mmmm
Mollena
Audacia Ray
Dita Von Teese
Anjelica Huston
Furry Girl
Even the women in the Dove Natural Beauty campaign
… Furthermore, age can be beautiful too.
Beauty has a lot to do with attitude. And brains.
The brain is our largest sex organ--I blogged about that some time ago--and if you don't have brains, then you're not getting my attention, at least not for long. But you also have to stand out from the crowd!
Talking about standing out, check the Adipositivity site. Props to the photographer and models who are positive about who they are and how they look.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Prejean's potential crown loss is NOT news!!
I went to lunch with Eric today and we sat by the TV, as usual. Normally I'm not paying much attention to the screen, but today I wish I'd sat appropriately because I was craning my neck. It was a painful tennis-match of a discussion as I complained to Eric and then hissed at the TV, in particular CNN.
CNN can do decent coverage. It's happened. What I found absolutely ... repugnant? idiotic? insulting to my intelligence? ... was that it was featuring, live, the hubbub over Carrie Prejean's naked photo and NOM (National Organization for Marriage) scandal. LIVE! LIVE, people, it was LIVE! They were discussing whether or not she'd broken her contract.
Both the waiter and Eric were in agreement that the nude photos were no big deal. It's not like Ms. Prejean was caught in a donkey show scandal or molesting children. Vanessa Williams had a similar scandal over photos published in Penthouse (1984); her crown was snatched away (no pun intended). Besides, the images of Ms. Prejean are hardly offensive. I've seen more 'pornographic' images of people with clothes on (see Christina Aguilera or Britney Spears or Paris Hilton photos on the web).
The two were also in agreement (Eric and the waiter) that this would not have likely happened if Ms. Prejean had not gone on to speak for NOM. However, she did make it known in the contest that she was anti-gay marriage ... so should we be surprised or dismayed because she spoke her mind and chose to support her beliefs?
BTW--National Organization for Marriage seems a bit of a misnomer. You're "for" marriage. Your name should mention that you're only for heterosexual marriage otherwise NOM could easily stand for an organization that supports ALL marriage. Just being picky, I guess.
Anyway, back to my particular issue at hand. CNN found the coverage of Ms. Prejean so important that it was LIVE. Meanwhile, at the bottom of the screen, scrolled more newsworthy (in my opinion) items: US soldier who opened fire on his comrades; or the US soldier who raped and murdered a 14 year old Iraqi girl; or Obama's economic plans. Those are some of the items that scrolled across the bottom of the screen but were not really featured. Certainly not given twenty (by the time we left it was probably more) minutes of LIVE coverage.
As Abe and his kids would say--ridonkulous.
What should be news about Ms. Prejean is the fact she spoke her mind and supported her causes as she saw fit and that people are up in arms about it. Freedom of speech ring any bells? I'd rather someone who can speak correctly about their beliefs than a puppet who has no real opinions. At least she's not like South Carolina's contestant in Miss Teen USA. It hurts just to listen (or watch). My ears bleed!
Oh, I don't support Ms. Prejean's opinions, not in the least. I fully support gay marriage. But I also support freedom of speech and the right to one's own opinion.
I definitely don't support news being wasted on a conference, live, of whether or not Miss California breached her pageant contract. Seriously, it's "news" like this that turns your brain to liquid, not Hulu.
CNN can do decent coverage. It's happened. What I found absolutely ... repugnant? idiotic? insulting to my intelligence? ... was that it was featuring, live, the hubbub over Carrie Prejean's naked photo and NOM (National Organization for Marriage) scandal. LIVE! LIVE, people, it was LIVE! They were discussing whether or not she'd broken her contract.
Both the waiter and Eric were in agreement that the nude photos were no big deal. It's not like Ms. Prejean was caught in a donkey show scandal or molesting children. Vanessa Williams had a similar scandal over photos published in Penthouse (1984); her crown was snatched away (no pun intended). Besides, the images of Ms. Prejean are hardly offensive. I've seen more 'pornographic' images of people with clothes on (see Christina Aguilera or Britney Spears or Paris Hilton photos on the web).
The two were also in agreement (Eric and the waiter) that this would not have likely happened if Ms. Prejean had not gone on to speak for NOM. However, she did make it known in the contest that she was anti-gay marriage ... so should we be surprised or dismayed because she spoke her mind and chose to support her beliefs?
BTW--National Organization for Marriage seems a bit of a misnomer. You're "for" marriage. Your name should mention that you're only for heterosexual marriage otherwise NOM could easily stand for an organization that supports ALL marriage. Just being picky, I guess.
Anyway, back to my particular issue at hand. CNN found the coverage of Ms. Prejean so important that it was LIVE. Meanwhile, at the bottom of the screen, scrolled more newsworthy (in my opinion) items: US soldier who opened fire on his comrades; or the US soldier who raped and murdered a 14 year old Iraqi girl; or Obama's economic plans. Those are some of the items that scrolled across the bottom of the screen but were not really featured. Certainly not given twenty (by the time we left it was probably more) minutes of LIVE coverage.
As Abe and his kids would say--ridonkulous.
What should be news about Ms. Prejean is the fact she spoke her mind and supported her causes as she saw fit and that people are up in arms about it. Freedom of speech ring any bells? I'd rather someone who can speak correctly about their beliefs than a puppet who has no real opinions. At least she's not like South Carolina's contestant in Miss Teen USA. It hurts just to listen (or watch). My ears bleed!
Oh, I don't support Ms. Prejean's opinions, not in the least. I fully support gay marriage. But I also support freedom of speech and the right to one's own opinion.
I definitely don't support news being wasted on a conference, live, of whether or not Miss California breached her pageant contract. Seriously, it's "news" like this that turns your brain to liquid, not Hulu.
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Sex Toy Giveaway
For those sexy readers out there, enter this contest hosted by Pleasurists.com in conjunction with Sextoy.com
I repost here what is on Pleasurists.com
Sextoy.com’s “Give me Fever”— Sex Toys Giveaway Contest!
Spring is finally upon us, the time when lovers get frisky and people’s minds turn to sex! To help get you motivated and to celebrate May as Masturbation Month, Sextoy.com is partnering with the Pleasurists.com for the “Give me Fever”— Sex Toys Giveaway Contest with $500 in prize package swag giveaways!
The Prize Packages!
1st Prize- Fetish Fantasies- Value $220
- Fantasy sex swing - black by Pipe Dreams - $130
- Fetish fantasy bed restraint bondage kit by Eldorado- $40
- Leather Cockring With Micro-Vibrator by California Exotics- $25
- Ryder - Midnight Purple by Tantus- $25
2nd Prize- Sexy Girl Bling- Value $145
- Ultimate Clit Caresser - Clear Aurora by Arabesque - $100
- Sinsation Glass G-spot Dildo by Ruby Glass- $20
- Goddess Gold Condom Compact by Just in Case- $25
3rd Prize- Couples Fun- $110
- Don Wand Colbalt Blue Plug by Don Wand- $20
- Rock Chick Pink G-Spot Vibrator Adult Sex Toy Kit by MBS- $70
- OOOOH! THAT’S IT! GSPOT GEL (1 oz) by Intimate Organics- $20
The Rules!
- You must 18+ to enter.
- You must be willing to provide your mailing address if you win so Sextoy.com can send you your sexy swag prizes.
- To enter simply repost this contest (complete guidelines) any time between May 1st and May 25th on your blog or a forum or elsewhere where you have permission (no spamming and post cannot be in comments sections of blogs) and email submission AT pleasurists.com with a link to the repost.
- If you have a preference for which prize you would like to be sent feel free to include that with your post or in the email with your repost link, we will take it into consideration when choosing the winners (though there’s no guarantee). Listing First, Second, and Third choice of prize package would be helpful!
- Submissions must be posted on or between May 1st and May 30th to qualify
- You must email your submission to submission AT pleasurists.com by May 30th at 11:59pm Pacific Time.
Winners will be chosen by random number generator, numbered by the order in which the emails are received. Each winner will be given their first choice prize if possible, or second or third if not. Winners will be announced on May 31st!
That’s it! Get to re-posting!
What I'm loving today
The phrase from Squidbillies' Early Cuyler : "I love you, I'll find you, I will kill you!" as shouted through a megaphone.The twitter information provided by @Bennu who tweets about Ancient Egypt and Egypt-related items.
The article "Pulling it Off" from Nerve about posing nude to find confidence, even if temporarily.
The Bookkake Blog for the great posts--I am new to their information, but being the geek I am I will read every post until I'm caught up. ...Maybe that's less geek and more OCD?
Leonard Nimoy, who turns out to be a feminist and photographer with a book of full-figured nudes available. Read the article from Salon.com. I will buy his book The Full Body Project
My job: A student told me, "I love you," after I helped her with JSTOR. It's nice to be loved.
Finally, my man. How many guys could still stand me after repeatedly quoting Early Cuyler for the last week? One. Just one.
So-called Google Killer
Bit off topic today, but I received an email linking me to an article titled "The Google Killer." While this title is an excellent hook for getting readers it is a misnomer to the item being described.
Nicholas Ciarelli @ The Daily Beast discusses Wolfram Alpha, which is "a free Web site that is the result of years of secret work by a British mathematician—Stephen Wolfram—and his team of 250 colleagues." At first I was under the impression that W.A. was in direct competition with Google, but it's not. When you read the article you'll see that W.A. is a very powerful calculator and a unique one--capable of computing numbers that you might actually have to do yourself after gathering the necessary facts from one or more places and figuring out how to calculate. However, W.A. is just that. A calculator. It answers your question instead of presenting you with a series of websites from which to gather your information.
W.A. is no replacement for Google. As a librarian, my immediate concern reading this article was "Where does Wolfram Alpha get its sources to compute the answer?" For some of the test runs that The Daily Beast put W.A. through there was no mention of where W.A. found the sources--how can I, the user, ensure that the length of the bridges W.A. entered into its calculation to find the total between Bridge A and Bridge B are accurate? What if it pulled its information from a typo? Or someone who just made up facts?
W.A. won't replace Google either in its ability to only calculate. Researchers, librarians, and students (among several other groups of people) can actually use Google accurately and successfully to complete, or aid, their research. But for that we need more than one site of information. If a student needs to know about symbolism in Milton's Paradise Lost, is W.A. going to search every single available paper, site, etc. and list it all for a student? Again, where is the information coming from? What would it do to formulate such searches? In the end, it doesn't appear that I, as a librarian, have to worry about that in regards to students because according to the post, it doesn't appear to do such searches.
Wired briefly discusses Wolfram Alpha as Google's new best friend. There are even YouTube posts up on the demo of W.A.. I think W.A. has a serious potential market, but as for replacing Google searching--that ain't gonna happen.
Ciarelli comes to some similar conclusions that W.A. would have to branch out to grab other consumers and that it can't search out items that are based on qualifications (e.g. best restaurants).
My issue is not with W.A., but with Ciarelli's article. There's a false hook to grab attention: "Is 'Googling' passé? A new search engine launching this month—developed in secret by a British mathematician—could radically change the way you surf the Web. The Daily Beast's Nicholas Ciarelli test drives it." Well, it's only going, possibly, to change the way you surf for computable facts, mathematical queries, etc. "Wolfram Alpha can only compute facts—and many of those computations deal with science and advanced math."
So, I'm irritated with the title and hook, which are seriously misleading. W.A. isn't going to kill Google, and even if W.A. branches out into areas that people want qualifications (e.g. best, better, worst, terrible) or into research areas that require a collation of facts or opinions, intelligent researchers are going to know that a single website that compiles this list for you isn't going to be trusted any more than Google. Not without citations that can be verified. Also, smart searchers are going to know not to trust a single site for information. And finally, part of the fun of research is actually seeing more than one site, is gathering all the information you can find and collecting the shiny kernels of knowledge for yourself. Otherwise we're not developing our brains--we'd be relying on a single source for all knowledge. Bah humbug to that.
And Bah humbug to Ciarelli's article and its false advertising.
For a more careful critique and discussion of Wolfram Alpha, which I look forward to testing, visit CNET's article by Stephen Shankman and Rafe Needleman.
Nicholas Ciarelli @ The Daily Beast discusses Wolfram Alpha, which is "a free Web site that is the result of years of secret work by a British mathematician—Stephen Wolfram—and his team of 250 colleagues." At first I was under the impression that W.A. was in direct competition with Google, but it's not. When you read the article you'll see that W.A. is a very powerful calculator and a unique one--capable of computing numbers that you might actually have to do yourself after gathering the necessary facts from one or more places and figuring out how to calculate. However, W.A. is just that. A calculator. It answers your question instead of presenting you with a series of websites from which to gather your information.
W.A. is no replacement for Google. As a librarian, my immediate concern reading this article was "Where does Wolfram Alpha get its sources to compute the answer?" For some of the test runs that The Daily Beast put W.A. through there was no mention of where W.A. found the sources--how can I, the user, ensure that the length of the bridges W.A. entered into its calculation to find the total between Bridge A and Bridge B are accurate? What if it pulled its information from a typo? Or someone who just made up facts?
W.A. won't replace Google either in its ability to only calculate. Researchers, librarians, and students (among several other groups of people) can actually use Google accurately and successfully to complete, or aid, their research. But for that we need more than one site of information. If a student needs to know about symbolism in Milton's Paradise Lost, is W.A. going to search every single available paper, site, etc. and list it all for a student? Again, where is the information coming from? What would it do to formulate such searches? In the end, it doesn't appear that I, as a librarian, have to worry about that in regards to students because according to the post, it doesn't appear to do such searches.
Wired briefly discusses Wolfram Alpha as Google's new best friend. There are even YouTube posts up on the demo of W.A.. I think W.A. has a serious potential market, but as for replacing Google searching--that ain't gonna happen.
Ciarelli comes to some similar conclusions that W.A. would have to branch out to grab other consumers and that it can't search out items that are based on qualifications (e.g. best restaurants).
My issue is not with W.A., but with Ciarelli's article. There's a false hook to grab attention: "Is 'Googling' passé? A new search engine launching this month—developed in secret by a British mathematician—could radically change the way you surf the Web. The Daily Beast's Nicholas Ciarelli test drives it." Well, it's only going, possibly, to change the way you surf for computable facts, mathematical queries, etc. "Wolfram Alpha can only compute facts—and many of those computations deal with science and advanced math."
So, I'm irritated with the title and hook, which are seriously misleading. W.A. isn't going to kill Google, and even if W.A. branches out into areas that people want qualifications (e.g. best, better, worst, terrible) or into research areas that require a collation of facts or opinions, intelligent researchers are going to know that a single website that compiles this list for you isn't going to be trusted any more than Google. Not without citations that can be verified. Also, smart searchers are going to know not to trust a single site for information. And finally, part of the fun of research is actually seeing more than one site, is gathering all the information you can find and collecting the shiny kernels of knowledge for yourself. Otherwise we're not developing our brains--we'd be relying on a single source for all knowledge. Bah humbug to that.
And Bah humbug to Ciarelli's article and its false advertising.
For a more careful critique and discussion of Wolfram Alpha, which I look forward to testing, visit CNET's article by Stephen Shankman and Rafe Needleman.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
