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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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