Archive for Table for One

Some of them want to use you

Does it seem to you that there’s an awful lot of sexual abuse going on these days?

When I was in medical school, we were assured most of these accusations were not true, merely psychological projections (and indeed, some were, and some were also induced false memories, and some conveniently remembered stuff to get money).

But in the late 1960s we were also told by psychiatrists teaching us that all mental illness was due to sexual frustration (Freud’s idea) so that girls who said “no” but were forced into sex was okay, because she really wanted it or needed to lose her “inhibitions.” But what was worse was that back then, some people were pushing the idea that it might be a good thing if a child was initiated into sex by a “loving” adult.

I saw 3 or 4 cases of sexual abuse each month when I was in private practice, or heard about it from my adult women patients (because the majority of my patients were women, but also because I evaluated most of the abuse of young girls, being the only lady doc in town).

The abuse was usually by a family member or a friend of the family … and often they coped but used alcohol, drugs and were promiscuous…

I’m starting to think that “inhibitions” are actually good for you, that all else being equal. the ability to not act on an impulse has some survival value. If there’s any vowel-ridden acronym more annoying than YOLO (you only live once), it’s FOMO (fear of missing out).

Comments (4)




Buzzwords lacking buzz

This, reports Robert Stacy McCain, comes from page 209 of Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity by Judith Butler, PhD, and since he actually paid for a copy of the book, I’ll take his word for it:

I use the term heterosexual matrix throughout the text to designate that grid of cultural intelligibility through which bodies, genders, and desires are naturalized. I am drawing from Monique Wittig’s notion of the “heterosexual contract” and, to a lesser extent, on Adrienne Rich’s notion of “compulsory heterosexuality” to characterize a hegemonic discursive/epistemic model of gender intelligibility that assumes that for bodies to cohere and make sense there must be a stable sex expressed through a stable gender (masculine expresses male, feminine expresses female) that is oppositionally and hierarchically defined through the compulsory practice of heterosexuality.

Says McCain:

Look, I don’t care how high your SAT score was, there’s no way you can understand that paragraph without reading it at least twice, and how many college sophomores are going to be as diligent as I was, in that I ordered copies of Monique Wittig’s and Adrienne Rich’s books in an effort to make sure I understood the sources cited by Professor Butler?

As a matter of policy, I will not read anything more than once containing any declension of “hegemony.”

Still, were this paragraph easily comprehensible, it would not be doing its job, which is to make the disciples nod knowingly and the rubes shake their heads.

Comments (4)




This couple is doomed

This does not strike me as one of the things you laugh about twenty years later:

The Pepperhead report on this particular bit of Hot Stuff:

This is the super hot pepper that started it all. All the way from Assam, India it is the first hot pepper to break the 1 million Scoville mark. Now a pepper has to reach 1 million SHU to even get on the top 10 hottest list. Some still think the Ghost Pepper is still the world’s hottest, but it is far from it. It held the World’s Hottest Pepper title for 4 years from 2007-2011 when the Trinidad Scorpion ‘Butch T’ surpassed it in heat.

For comparison purposes (Scoville heat units):

Jalapeño:  3,500 to 8,000

Ghost Pepper:  1,041,427

Comments (4)




So long as you feel good

I mean, if that’s the best you can do for a metric:

A new University of Guelph study has revealed that people in open relationships are as happy as their coupled-up counterparts.

“We found people in consensual, non-monogamous relationships experience the same levels of relationship satisfaction, psychological well-being and sexual satisfaction as those in monogamous relationships,” said Jessica Wood, a PhD student in applied social psychology and lead author of the study. “This debunks societal views of monogamy as being the ideal relationship structure.”

Except for the minor detail that it does no such thing:

It doesn’t debunk it because the “ideal relationship structure” is not at all a mere function of individual satisfaction. It’s unreal to have to remind ostensible adults of this fact. Satisfaction is, of course, very nice. But society also has to function, children have to be raised, and productive work has to be accomplished in a generally stable environment. Disregarding these elements entirely in favor of a puerile “satisfaction” index is precisely what one would expect from a Jessica Wood at Guelph University.

At the very least, these questions need to be answered:

If communal sex pods, or warlord harems, or string polyamory were actual competitors for the ideal relationship structure, then Jessica Wood would be obliged to explain how each performs in serious social metrics. What is the quantity and quality of offspring produced? What is the state of their physical and emotional health? Who precisely has a vested interest in that health when paternity is of no concern? How is the inevitable jealousy to be managed on a public scale? What to do with the masses of unmated males when 80% of the women seek 20% of the men? Who is morally obligated to support whom in the absence of a nuclear family structure? Do commitments have a biological or relationship basis? Are you the father if you are presently having sex with the mother, or if an indifferent coupling produced a pregnancy? What does being a father mean if fathers are fungible? Would at-home young mothers need to accrue sex credits from former partners in order to support their period of vulnerable child-rearing? How much more time will men spend in a societally wasteful state of sexual competition in this model compared to the effort they would have expended on work and child rearing in a monogamous one?

“Yes, but … more variety!”

“Fifty-seven channels,” says Mr Springsteen, “and nothin’ on.”

Comments (5)




Doing the split

Garfunkel and Oates once did a song called “29/31”, and it was every bit as scary as it was funny.

Now comes “50/50,” billed as “a feminist love song,” and it’s got some discomfort of its own:

I think we need to encourage Kate and Riki to do more songs with numbers.

Comments




I feel for you, friend

Though I can never hope to approach your uniqueness:

The 52-hertz whale is an individual whale of unidentified species, which calls at the very unusual frequency of 52 Hz. This pitch is a much higher frequency than that of the other whale species with migration patterns most closely resembling this whale’s — the blue whale (10–39 Hz) or fin whale (20 Hz). It has been detected regularly in many locations since the late 1980s and appears to be the only individual emitting a whale call at this frequency. It has been described as the “world’s loneliest whale.”

We do anthropomorphize a bit, don’t we? And actually, Mister Fifty-Two has most recently been calling at closer to 47 Hz, suggesting he’s matured, or at least grown a bit.

Could this whale be a hybrid of two (or more) species? It’s possible, say the experts, though they have no recordings of known hybrids.

And maybe this is all perfectly explainable, once we have all the facts. For now, I’ll put on Judy Collins’ “Farewell to Tarwathie,” in which she’s accompanied by a different species of whale — the humpback — and ponder the mysteries of the sea and of those creatures who call it home.

(Via Brandon Melendez.)

Comments




She met a guy

This video, as of this past week, ranks #7 on the list of most-disliked YouTube videos of all time:

Well, I like it. (I am also deeply fond of #6.)

In “How It Is,” Bibi (Bianca Heinicke) runs down a list of things that make her feel, well, run down. But things pick up at the end: “I met a guy, he knows my name.”

And wouldn’t you know it, she did exactly that:

I’m happy for her. This is the guy:

He’s definitely got balls.

Comments (1)




The price of loneliness

The pure, unadulterated blankness of my dance card, as my therapist is fond of pointing out, surely costs me something. But trying to do something about it has a price tag of its own:

Over a 10 year span, there have been increases in the cost for singles to mingle, with the rise of inflation for in-person dates (i.e. movie tickets, meals, etc) and the popularity of paid relationship models, like Match.com or eHarmony. The average cost of dating has gone up about 52 percent — and that’s before you pay to swipe.

Truth be told, when I saw that phrase “paid relationship models,” I thought of, um, something else.

eHarmony and Match cost approximately $39.95 per month for a 6-month contract, not including coupons. In 2008, it cost approximately $50 to take someone on a date, and in 2018 it’s about $101 — which is a 52 percent increase, not even taking into account monthly membership fees or higher costs of living.

The average dater spends $239 a year just to be on dating sites, many using promotions and coupons to subscribe. That means if you’re going out on 4 dates a month, you’re looking at over $5,000 a year to search for love. Then, once you’ve found the person you want to promise forever to (or not), you’re looking at a total price tag of $72,000 from “hello” to “I Do.”

I am forced to conclude that the hermit, pain in the heart notwithstanding, comes out better on this deal.

Comments (3)




Choose your own stereotype

Says this abstract: “Inbred males should have lower reproductive success than outbred males among other things because of inbreeding depression in attractiveness to females and a reduced lifespan.”

How about a kiss for your cousin Dupree? Not gonna happen, she says, but how can you test for this?

We used an inventive experimental set-up that enabled us to assess male behaviour in relation to an apparent mating opportunity while excluding potential confounding effects of female preference. Age-, weight-, and size-matched inbred and outbred male canaries (Serinus canaria) were presented with a female that only one male at a time could access visually via a ‘peephole’ and thus when both males were equally interested in seizing the apparent mating opportunity this would result in contest. We find that inbred males spent more than twice as much time ‘peeping’ at the female than outbred males, suggesting that inbreeding indeed causes different behavioural responses to an apparent mating opportunity. Our study is among the first to highlight that inbreeding affects male mating behaviour, and therewith potentially male-male competition, which should be taken into account in order to understand the full range of inbreeding effects on fitness.

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0199182.

(Via Neuroskeptic.)

Comments (2)




Following up, only not

Says the BBC:

Last week we published the story of “Joseph”, a 60-year-old man who wrote about his regret at missing out on sexual experiences until the age of 37. Many readers wrote to say that his story struck a chord with them — echoing his point that society aggravates the problem by unfairly portraying lonely people as strange or inadequate. Here is a selection of their emails.

Most of the published responses were from men, and it’s no surprise — to me, anyway — that none of these guys seem to have any of the bitterness suffused with anger that characterizes the so-called “incel” movement; they are not at all happy with their lot, but they appear disinclined to blame it on all those Stacys out there chasing Chad. And most notably, none of them claim that big-S Society, or some subset thereof, is actively conspiring to deprive them of their rights to an occasional ejaculation. Then again, this is the BBC, not 4chan or reddit.

Comments




Roads to be shared

Not too long from now, women in Saudi Arabia will be legally permitted to drive. It is by no means difficult to find men who have a problem with this:

“You will not be driving,” says the hashtag.

“Hold my beer,” say Saudi women, who generally don’t actually drink beer:

To the chap quoted at the top: It is not wise to mess with a woman who aspires to, and perhaps already owns, a Mercedes-Benz G-Wagen.

Comments (2)




What light through yonder window breaks?

You wouldn’t believe me if I told you. Or would you?

Some people were meant to be together — even if they’re not technically people. Or, for that matter, together.

Comments (1)




Ruthless self-appraisal

One topic covered at the most recent shrink session was the sad state of my dance card. I didn’t defend it, exactly, but I did, I believe, correctly identify the person responsible for this situation. (I carry his picture in my wallet.)

The next day, Robert Stacy McCain issued his own findings:

Overestimating your chances is a basic trait of losers. An unrealistically high self-appraisal — a misguided belief that you deserve better romantic partners than are actually available to you — is one obvious reason why people engage in online dating. And it evidently does not occur to these people that the online dating pool is polluted with people just like themselves, because another basic trait of losers is a lack of self-awareness. That is to say, the loser is seldom aware of why he is losing and, indeed, may refuse to recognize that he is a loser.

This is what produces guys like Elliot Rodger, who declared himself “The Supreme Gentleman” before his 2014 murder/suicide rampage. He was an extreme example of the loser mentality, a half-Malaysian guy who seemed to believe he deserved a perfect blonde girlfriend. He actually wasn’t bad-looking, and he was born to fortunate circumstances — his father is a film director — but he was doomed by his lack of self-awareness. All the feminist lectures about “misogyny” and “male entitlement” inspired by the Isla Vista shootings missed this point: If Elliot Rodger was typical of anything, he was a typical loser.

For the record, I have never had a blonde girlfriend, perfect or otherwise, and have never had any reason to expect I would get one.

Comments (4)




Lucky King

The Home of the Whopper has a sort of romantic side after all:

The object of his affections responded positively:

There’s something weirdly gratifying about fast food capable of a fast quip.

(Via HelloGiggles.)

Comments (1)




Forever unlaid

Given the existing statistics — however many thousands of guys who can’t get a girlfriend to save their lives, exactly two mass murderers — you might reasonably conclude that the “tragedy” of “involuntary celibacy” might be a smidgen less than, well, tragic; I can match almost any of these characters’ dance cards for blankness, and yes, there are times when it hurts, but also, there are times when the whole damn thing just seems risible.

Robert Stacy McCain is not laughing. Or not much, anyway:

Part of the “incel” problem, of course, is that awkward nerds are spending so much time online as a way to avoid real life and, in doing so, they also avoid the kind of personal encounters that could enable them to develop the social skills they actually need. Unless a guy is naturally extroverted and unusually attractive, he’s going to need a lot of practice to learn how to communicate effectively with women. The loser is going to get rejected 9 times out of 10, at least, and he has to develop the mental fortitude necessary to withstand this painful humiliation and keep smiling.

Still:

Which did not entitle him to kill six people — four men and two women, the dumbass — and maim fourteen others.

You know what I think of this folderol:

I mention purely in passing that I am neither naturally extroverted nor unusually attractive.

Comments (8)




Stormy no more

From his perch in the Vampire State, Akaky figures that Donald Trump’s dalliance with Stormy Daniels is about played out as a news story:

Well, I may think it’s time to move on, but it seems that I am the only one who thinks so. I went forth to battle the new Puritans who seek to oppress us all with their retrograde religious morality and found that they agreed with me, for the most part, and that the sexual revolutionaries were the ones foaming at the mouth about what two consenting adults chose to do with their genitalia. I found this more than a little confusing, to say the least, and so I had to sit down and eat Chinese food (the roast pork with broccoli and wonton soup were very good, thank you for asking) in order to relieve the cognitive dissonance and sort out just what in the blue blazes happened here in this our Great Republic while I was not looking. Someone changed the rule book somewhere along the line and no one bothered to tell me that Comstockery was back in fashion. Well, everything old is new again, as the saying goes, and there is no new thing under the sun, but I cannot help but notice that the new version of Comstockery is remarkably like the old libertinism complete with extra servings of wanton soup, with the singular difference that the new Puritans didn’t mind when a President they liked and supported did this sort of thing while he was actually President and they do mind a great deal when a President they loathe and despise did the exact same thing when he wasn’t President. Nearly a quarter of a century separate the initial inaugurations of these two men and much can change in a quarter of a century: the Internet barely existed in 1993, film photography was photography, I was forty pounds lighter — really, I am not making that up — and so I am sure that this sudden concern for the private morality of public people is the product of a generation’s coming of age and rejecting the immature ideas and commitments of their salad days. Or the new Puritans could be just a bunch of sleazy hypocrites. That’s always a possibility, you know, especially if you are cynically inclined, as I tend to be.

All politicians in the last quarter of a century, it seems to me, are required to take the Hypocritic Oath: “When we do it, it’s okay.” Were it not for double standards, we’d have no standards at all.

I was, I think, forty pounds heavier in 1993. Maybe more.

Comments (4)




Not at all a matriarchy

But it’s obvious who’s pulling the strings:

I am having a house built, and I was amused by the emphasis put on countertops, cabinet door styles, and water faucet designs. Meanwhile, I asked about the actual materials used in the construction of the cabinets, and the local design center workers looked at me like I was insane. People would routinely spend $10,000 on trendy cabinet doors, never once caring that the boxes and end panels were cheap particle board. I asked for plywood end panels, and according to them, I was the first they had ever met there to request this. It took them two weeks just to find pricing on it (it wasn’t bad). But that just shows you that even when you build a house, the target demographic is female. Everything is about style, trendiness, etc… A man comes in, and asks structural questions, and everybody has to look up the answers because who gives a damn if the cabinet boxes fall apart when they get wet — but everybody needs a name brand quartz countertop with some fancy cabinet door made of imported wood from … wherever.

Then again, 96 million households receive HGTV; somewhere around a hundred and thirty-four men actually watch it, and half of them are hoping to learn how to flip.

Even something like the traditionally male space of fast cars ultimately caters more to women. Most people don’t buy Ferraris because they are Italian automobile enthusiasts, they buy them to signal wealth to cater to the desires of women. Pleasing women is at the core of our society, it’s embedded in everything. You don’t see a campaign to buy your man beer, to give him plenty of his favorite sexual favors, or any of that. And if he asks, it’s probably sexist or woman-hating. Maybe it’s even rape.

And now you know why both Maserati and Lamborghini are selling sport-utility vehicles. It ain’t because the Mister needs a place to stash his tackle box.

Comments (2)




It’s exactly like that

And if you know either a man or a woman, you know it’s true:

Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to go add half a cup of mouthwash to the bouillabaisse.

Comments (3)




Whatever that may mean

In my secondary-school days, I took one year of French, two years of Spanish, and three years of mostly ecclesiastical Latin. And I swear, I don’t understand women in any of them.

Comments (3)




Four-armed is forewarned

What’s worse, we’re running out of deodorant:

OkCupid ad showing two women with an average of three arms

Once we get into serious gene splicing, we’ll have entire dating services catering to the customer seeking extra limbs or other parts.

(With thanks to Erin Palette.)

Comments (3)




Sixty-fifth seed

In 2001, the NCAA introduced the play-in game to the Men’s Division I basketball tournament, in which two also-rans would compete for the 64th and last seed, 16th in whatever regional. Though there were now 65 teams involved, there was never an officially designated 65th seed, which is kind of a shame, since “65th seed” packs even more of a rhetorical wallop than “fifth wheel,” my accustomed location in the dating game.

And it’s not like it would hurt the NCAA tournament, which now involves 68 teams.

Comments (1)




Grey-matter romance

“I like big brains,” she said, “and I cannot lie.”

Sure you can’t, honey. Sure you can’t.

Comments (8)




Those darn guys

Every woman has a story, and this is (some of) Lynn’s:

I have never experienced anything like sexual harassment. It would be too easy, and not at all fair, for me to talk about my life and what kind of person I am in connection with this subject. Girls of my generation were taught that if you dress modestly and act like a lady men will treat you with respect and it seems that it worked for me but to make this assumption ignores the fact that other women have experienced sexual harassment in spite of following the rules. Personally, I think it’s comparable to the old saying about locks — that they only keep out honest people. Just as a thief will still break into your house or car in spite of locks, not even a burka will slow down a true scum bag.

Not all these bags, though, contain scum:

What doesn’t get talked about much is respect, or the lack of it. Sexual harassment is just much farther along the same spectrum of disrespect as condescension and mansplaining. (No, I’m not saying they’re equivalent. Pay attention.) Sexual harassment and sexual violence are more widespread than most people realized but the underlying disrespect is even more widespread. It would be nice to think that the light that is currently being shone on the problem of harassment will lead to bringing an end to it but unless something is done about disrespect for women little will change.

If you are a woman you have been condescended to and mansplained to, and if you challenge the man who does this he will invariably react with hurt and outrage. I firmly believe that the vast majority of men do not even realize that they are doing it. If you point it out to them they will righteously swear that they were “just talking” and go away convinced that “you just can’t talk to women” or some such dismissive thoughts.

Some guys just can’t talk to women, perhaps because they believe in their glands, if not necessarily their hearts, that any woman can be conquered with the right words. Were that the case, I’d have a waiting list attached to my dance card; what little attention I’ve attracted over the years is largely due to my curious ability to sound more interesting than I actually am, an ability which wanes with time.

That said, if you catch me being condescending it’s not because you’re a woman; it’s because I’m a jerk.

Comments (8)




A couple of waves ago

“I am strong; I am invincible; I am Woman.” — Helen Reddy, 1972.

That was then. This is embarrassing:

In this bright, shiny, barely driven-off-the-car-lot new century, women are seen by the professional feminist class as easily offended, fragile, put-upon delicate snowflakes, too fine, pure and noble to endure the rough and tumble of academia and the working world, and certainly too fragile to administer a withering rebuke when offended. Taking instant offense and cherishing grudges as if they were delicate orchids have been raised to a high art. This, if the women perpetuating this kind of thing stopped to consider the implications and possible outcome — will lead to nowhere good. (It likely already has led to nowhere good as far as the dating scene goes, for the girls who treat guys like dirt … and then complain there are no good men out there.) What intelligent person, male or female, will want to have anything beyond the bare minimum required to do with a hysterical, vengeful, grudge-nurturing woman in an academic or a business setting? Hire one of these women, or promote to a position of authority? Not if you are a sane business owner.

Perhaps I am an outlier here, but just about every female I know is eminently capable of delivering a withering rebuke on short notice. Trust me. I’ve been on the receiving end of several.

Comments (5)




In the absence of Home Ec

Bob is past eighty and runs a YouTube channel devoted to classic country and Western swing. I caught this anecdote from him on a message board:

When I was in Junior High School, 8th grade, I took a class in typing. I was not able to learn music (they gave me a cello!), so I wanted a manual skill. So I signed up.

When the other guys found out, they started teasing me for taking a girl’s class.

I told them, “You’re right. It’s just me and twenty girls all to myself.”

Their jaw dropped. They had not thought about that aspect.

Did he become a good typist after all that? Yes, he did.

Comments (2)




Not the harmonica

In which we attempt to write an article about blowjobs without actually using the term “blowjob.” In fact, we managed to do it without even using the word “penis.”

Comments (6)




We got your scarlet sash right here

NBC, all of a sudden, is scared of that whole man-woman thing:

[A]mid questions surrounding what the network knew about [Matt] Lauer’s conduct and when, NBC has reportedly instituted strict new rules governing workplace behavior.

Page Six reported on Monday that “NBC employees have been ordered to report any inappropriate relationships in the workplace — and if they fail to do so, they could be fired for covering up for colleagues,” according to a source.

The source also informed Page Six that “staffers have been told that if they find out about any affairs, romances, inappropriate relationships or behavior in the office, they have to report it to human resources, their superior or the company anti-harassment phone line.”

Why, it’s the Junior Anti-Sex League! Although Orwell probably didn’t imagine this:

To take it to the next level, the source further claimed NBC’s new rules stipulate employees wishing to hug one another “have to do a quick hug, then an immediate release, and step away to avoid body contact” and are forbidden from sharing taxis home or, oddly, “taking vegans to steakhouses.”

Who knew there’d been an upsurge in unsuspecting vegans being hauled off to their version of Room 101 culinary hell?

Comments (4)




Yeah, good luck with that

A woman is entitled to want what she wants. Getting it, however, is an entirely different matter:

Predicted result: gross, sad, and unattractive, until the day she dies.

Comments (10)




Boycott those bad boys

On second thought, is that really the answer?

If Alexander Fleming were found out to be [a] horrific man, we wouldn’t stop using penicillin. And if Bill Gates and Steve Jobs were nightmares, we’d still buy computers. That goes without saying. It’s only in the arts that people valiantly claim to refuse to ever partake in any creation. When it comes to film and television production, that boycott or sudden shut down can punish far more people than just the accused. It harms the entire cast and crew. But more to the point, boycotting art suggests it’s a convenience we can take or leave. People will make more and different art. It’s a dime a dozen.

Except it’s not.

Art provokes and enlightens and sparks further ideas. I have Picassos on my wall, Heidegger in my bookshelf, and Hitchcock online. These were not good men, but these were men capable of creating things that affect me, images and ideas that nobody else could possibly create quite the same way. Artists are one in a million, and destroying their work or denying their ability to create, just denies society access to one more chance to be woken up from our zoned out existence. Art is individual. We’re each affected by particular and specific ideas, which are often rare, revealing themselves far too infrequently to toss aside in hopes that they will be taken up later by someone with better behaviour.

From this here site, ten years ago:

Inasmuch as everything else you’re going to read about the late Ike Turner focuses on his seriously-dysfunctional relationship with Tina, I’m going to spend some time on the musical stuff, which starts in his late teens in the Mississippi delta with the founding of the Kings of Rhythm, who cut one of the contenders for First Rock and Roll Record in late 1950: “Rocket 88,” credited to Kings vocalist/sax player Jackie Brenston and his, um, “Delta Cats,” written by Turner, who played that amazingly-distorted guitar. Chess picked it up for national distribution and watched it become a jukebox staple.

And back in the day, we believed in a statute of limitations, or at least Tina Turner did:

After they split, her career eclipsed his, at least partly because he had some serious brushes with the law; the pair were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1991, but Ike, in jail on drug charges, did not attend the ceremony. (Tina, graciously, accepted for him.)

On the other hand, I’m not inclined to cut Roman Polanski any slack, but maybe that’s just me.

Comments (3)




Status thimbles

Oregon Muse ranted yesterday morning on AoSHQ:

“It’s pretty funny when feminists stamp their feet and demand their safe spaces from guys whistling and catcalling them, because they’re not telling you what they really want. What they really want is not to be whistled at and catcalled by unattractive guys. In other words, they want a world where they can flirt and sexually banter with alpha male sports stars and multi-millionaires, but the lowly office geek who dares ask any of them out on a date will feel the full force of the law landing on them.”

Along those lines, Robert Stacy McCain recounts the saga of Matt Lauer:

His public image was as one of the “good guys,” a liberal in good standing, beloved by millions of adoring female viewers — and yet he was a serial harasser, a guy who had a “ape button” installed in his desk so he could lock his office door by remote control whenever he wanted to get jiggy with a female colleague. How many years did this go on, and why did no one at NBC complain? Because he was high status, that’s why. Whatever women might say about Lauer now that he’s been exposed, at the time all these shenanigans were going on, women at NBC were quite flattered to have Lauer make a move on them. A handsome multimillionaire TV star? You know the interns who fetched his coffee were bragging to their friends if Lauer ever flirted with them.

Amy Winehouse, rest her soul, knew this was coming:

Fearless to the last, she chose to bestow this advice on the half of the species that needed it more: her own.

Comments (2)