Tuesdays with Moron: Chatological Humor Update (August 13, 2013)

Aug 13, 2013

Every Tuesday, Gene publishes weekly updates to his chats.

- Submit your questions to Gene's NEXT monthly chat here. It is scheduled to take place on Tuesday, August 27 at noon. Please do not submit questions for this chat. Thank you.

- Want to find out what you're missing? Check out Gene's July live chat to get an idea of what's coming up.

On one Tuesday each month, Gene is online to take your questions and abuse. He will chat about anything. Although this chat is sometimes updated between live shows, it is not and never will be a "blog," even though many persons keep making that mistake. One reason for the confusion is the Underpants Paradox: Blogs, like underpants, contain "threads," whereas this chat contains no "threads" but, like underpants, does sometimes get funky and inexcusable.

There is some one reader out there, one chatter, who keeps daring me to defend my position that in the absence of children, marriage is simply going steady, an arrangement easily broken with no harm to a third party, and one not requiring sanctification by the state.

This person is outraged, much as Gina was when we first discussed this matter 6,000 years ago in our book. The outraged chatter points out that without marriage, people who love each other and want to be committed to each other in good times and bad and whatnot will not be able to qualify for all sorts of government benefits allowed to spouses, will not benefit from inheritance laws, will not be able to make legal decisions for the other in times of incapacity, get death benefits, and so forth.

All true. And I think that contract law should recognize this special state, which I will now call "phreebation." When two people agree in writing to a state of phreebation -- all that is necessary to solemnify this is a notary public -- they get all the benefits and responsibilities currently available to married people. The only difference is that the government is no longer in the rather icky and immature business of certifying who loves whom, and setting rules and regs and hurdles for how and when one can fall out of love and under which circumstances, and if this should happen, who owes what to whom and who gets the dog. We are all adults here.

Matrimony as currently practiced, involve "bonds." The "bonds" of matrimony. That's a heavy word. I think it is necessary when children are present, for obvious reason; marriage should not be casually broken. There need to be penalties, lawyers, people looking out for the innocent third party. But there are no "bonds" of phreebation to break. The state of phreebation, which is a contract matter entirely, shall be breakable by either party at whim or will.

I am really bothered by all the "she must really want to be NYC first lady!" slams on Huma. First, and foremost, she's in an awful situation where no matter what she does she will suffer, and to judge her without walking in her shoes is just not fair. Second, try to walk in her shoes. When this story first broke, she was newly married, heavily pregnant, mated to this guy for life no matter what because once you have a kid with someone, he's part of your life to some degree forever. She undoubtedly didn't think she was marrying the guy Weiner turned out to be. She didn't want to believe the real him was the guy revealed on Twitter -- so she was powerfully motivated to accept his bogus repentance. Once you reinvest in what you want to believe, it is even harder to accept that you were wrong. She is trying really hard to make the reality she wants by making herself so invaluable to him that he'll stop. I watched her body language at the press conference at which Weiner made political hay out of her forgiveness ("My wife's given me a second chance, so New Yorkers should too!") and had the gall to characterize the chance he's on now as a "second" chance rather than the fourth or fifth it probably actually is, and what I saw was shame and bewilderment. She can't understand why this is happening to her when she's trying so hard. She doesn't realize that a real flesh and blood woman can't win a competition with a guy's porn-infused fantasies. I hope, for her sake, that she will come to see that a man who believes a non-porn actress woman wants to be penetrated so hard that her breasts stop obeying the laws of physics or is sexually aroused by gagging can't be reached, and will leave him for someone more grounded in reality. But I don't think that what's keeping her here for now is ambition.

This is very well put. Thank you.  I want to add one thing, on behalf of most men. For most men, there is no "competition" between a real woman and sexual fantasies, whether they be porn infused or entirely self-generated. We are not quite THAT shallow. Real women are vastly better than anything imagined; imagination is a tool, and nothing more.

You know, it is possible to make an argument that these real women who were sexting partners for Weiner were not, actually, real to him. That they were particularly graphic and interactive porn. I think that's a reasonable argument, and it makes him better in a way, and worse in a way. Better in that, at least in his mind, he wasn't cheating. Worse in the sense that he was dehumanizing these women to a disgusting degree.

I think the poster with the weird thing on the back of his/her hand might have nummular eczema. Not because I'm a doctor, but because I have nummular eczema, and it sounds sorta like it. There are prescription meds that help. Go to a dermatologist.

Well, let's see if we can diagnose.   Might this be what you have?

Taillights flash when you brake, even touching them to slow down. So if the pig decelerated, taillights are visible. On a related note, I *really* like the "happier than a camel on Wednesday" commercial. One of their best.

I hadn't seen this one.  It's great.   Fabulous voice on the camel!   I'm wondering if it would be better without voicing the key word?  Not sure. 

Regular underwear made from good material lays flat and shows no VPL. Try Natori, DKNY, and such, find them at Nordstrom. Very comfortable too.

This reminds me: I went shopping for jeans on Saturday and instead of Macy's I went to Nordstrom. Thought I spring for more than the $39.99 I usually spend for Levi's. So. Um. No. No, I am not going to spend $219 for True Religion, which do not look appreciably different from any other jeans.

When I took a class in the art of seduction several years ago, The Don explained to us why he wears 'em: Women notice them. Women think that if he'll spend $200 on jeans, he'll spend $200 on me. Ew.

I freaked my friend out the other day when I told her one of her Doctors most likely failed to get into Vet school.

Haha!

I shall tell this to Molly.

Gene, for those of us who just want to use Twitter to access our news or be fans of shows / people / art we enjoy, why have followers? I have none; my friends don't use Twitter to communicate. I only tweet to ask questions or make comments, and that's very rare, too. A while ago you tweeted a joke about someone having more tweets than followers (something about them not existing), and it really struck a nerve! I thought the idea of being more interested in what others have to say is a sign of humility, not of being a friendless zero!

I don't seriously contemn people who have more tweets that followers.    The people I am appalled by are those who keep tweeting but follow no one.   They are interested in nothing anyone has to say; Twitter is simply their soapbox to pontificate. That degree of ego astonishes me.  Perfect example of this is Mr. Errol Morris.  Every few days he deigns to issue a pretentious observation, for his minions.

Not only is he still alive, he was on Letterman a couple of months ago and is still in pretty good form - though he is ancient.

Good lord.  He looks 116 years old, and walks like his personal equipment is in a vise.  But he's terrific.

I don't know anyone who routinely wears thongs; they're just plain uncomfortable, for starters. Reminds me, though, of a former life at a button-up DC trade association, and the awkwardness that ensued when HR had to tell the CEO that his suggestion for the employee handbook's dress code chapter be revised -- he was of an age when thongs ment footwear, and thus the employee handbook should ban thongs.

Hahahahaha!

Okay, we'll end the update here. I, too, am old enough to remember when "thongs" meant "flip-flops." It does remind me of a true story that may never have made it to the Internet. A reporter was on his first day of a new job, being shown the computer system, when he inadvertently sent out to all employees a test message he was noodling with. It said something like: "Remember, tomorrow is no-underpants day."

I couldn't find it online, but in my search I found this, about a TV reporter who was fired after she admitted sometimes going bra-less on camera. I don't know the details of the case, but I'm guessing it wasn't the bra thing so much as her other admissions, some of which are just plain creepy

In This Chat
Gene Weingarten
Gene Weingarten is the humor writer for The Washington Post. His column, Below the Beltway, has appeared weekly in the Post's Sunday magazine since July 2000 and has been distributed nationwide on The Los Angeles Times-Washington Post News Service. He was awarded the 2008 Pulitzer Prize for Feature Writing.

Gene's latest columns, chats and more.
Recent Chats
  • Next: